




Class 

Book. 





Copyright N°. 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 


\<\Zl 
c,opy2. 

Rrr. 





















THE PSYCHOLOGY 
OF INSPIRATION- 


AN ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH RELIGIOUS FROM SCIENTIFIC 
TRUTH AND TO HARMONIZE CHRISTIANITY 
WITH MODERN THOUGHT 


) 

V 

BY 

GEORGE LANSING RAYMOND, L.H.D. 

Formerly Professor of Esthetics in Princeton and George Washington U liversities. 
Author of “Fundamentals in Education, Art and Civics,’' “Suggestions 
for the Spiritual Life,” “Ethics and Natural Law,” 

“The Essentials of .Esthetics,” etc. 



FUNK AND WAGNALLS COMPANY 

jBteto Horfc anb 3Cottbon 

1923 






$L53 

in^ 


Copyright, 1907, by 

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY 

Revised Edition 
Copyright, 1923, by 

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY 


Printed in the United States of America 
Published, September, 1923 


©C1A759673 C 



NOV -3 1923 


s\A-0 ■V' 


PREFACE 


Never in history was there more call than there 
is just now for a solution of the problems discussed 
in this volume. Within the last year, preachers to 
overflowing congregations that are close neighbors 
in New York City have started a controversy in all 
Episcopal, Presbyterian and Baptist communities 
which cannot be stayed till every thinking member 
of them has given it more or less serious considera¬ 
tion. 

The controversy concerns certain dogmas of 
Christianity, all of them derived from statements 
in what the majority of the people of our country 
believe to be a divinely inspired Bible. Notwith¬ 
standing this belief, the results of careful study, 
especially since the middle of the nineteenth cen¬ 
tury, have convinced many that certain of these 
statements are erroneous, because they do not accord 
with what has been revealed by discovering the 
imprint upon the rocks of that which took place 
in past ages, and by observing the movements and 
activities that must take place at the present in 
order to fulfill the undeniable requirements of na- 
ture and its living creatures. Among such state¬ 
s' 


PREFACE 


ments are those that the world was made in six days 
(Gen. 1:1-31 and Ex. 20:11) and man in one day 
(Gen. 1:26-31); that the sun and moon stood still 
at the command of Joshua (Joshua 10:12); and 
that Jonah lived three days in a whale’s stomach 
(Jonah 1:17). 

It is natural that those who believe the Bible to 
be divinely inspired should resent the supposition 
that it can contain errors, and should endeavor to 
convince men that such is not the case. It is natu¬ 
ral, too, that those discussing this subject should 
differ in their conceptions of the right methods of 
determining the truth concerning it, and, therefore, 
should separate into different groups. 

Of these groups, two, at the present time, are 
attracting particular attention. One is composed 
of those termed Fundamentalists. They are so 
termed because they hold that it is fundamental to 
true religion that the Bible should be considered 
inerrant and an infallible standard of faith and prac¬ 
tice, in connection with which they assert also that 
certain of its statements, sometimes explained as 
figurative, should be accepted as literally true by at 
least all church officials. The other group promi¬ 
nent at present contains those termed Liberals. 
These hold that none acquire truth from merely 
another’s assertions; that it can belong to them 
as a result only of their own thinking it; and that 
men are the most likely to think that which is abso- 


PREFACE 


lutely true in the degree in which they have con¬ 
sidered carefully the experiences and opinions of 
their opponents as well as of those in agreement 
with themselves; and, therefore, that everybody, 
whether a private member or an official of a church, 
should be allowed more or less liberty to apply even 
to religious questions his own powers of observation, 
reason and judgment. In connection with this con¬ 
ception, too, and partly explaining why it is held, 
many Liberals believe that the last word has not 
yet been said with reference to that which can be 
proved to be necessary in order to render a book 
divinely inspired. They are anticipating a time 
when the new facts that have been discovered will 
necessitate and provide a new theory of inspiration 
formulated in order to accord with the facts. 

No one can understand the reasons for the hos¬ 
tility between these two groups, and, at times, 
between both of these and a third group composed 
of certain scientists, until he recognizes the motive 
that animates most of the adherents of each. One 
must acknowledge that this motive is almost invari¬ 
ably humanitarian, caused by a fear of what seems 
a serious menace to human welfare. The Scientists 
believe that all progress among men, physical or 
psychical, depends upon investigation and discov¬ 
ery, and that nothing can be more detrimental to 
the pursuit of these than prejudice and superstition, 
—two results which some, but not all, of their 


PREFACE 


number associate with any belief whatever in any 
theory supposed to be immune from investigation 
because divinely revealed. The Fundamentalists 
believe that all such religion as they consider true 
depends upon a comprehensive acceptance of the 
Bible in its entirety. They recall that, when Robert 
G. Ingersoll went about the country lecturing upon 
“Some Mistakes of Moses,” hundreds and, perhaps, 
thousands were influenced to give up their belief 
not only in Moses, but in any revealed religion; 
and facts like these naturally awaken a fear that 
to admit the slightest possibility of error in that 
which comes from the Deity may begin a movement 
of thought which, unless miraculously stopped, may 
not end till all the world have lost their God, and 
all the good influences that can come from him. 
The Liberals believe that both science and religion 
are necessary to the advancement of human welfare, 
—the one contributing almost as much through 
increasing intelligence and civilization, as does 
the other through increasing enlightenment and 
righteousness. What they fear is that science and 
religion may not cooperate; that the logical and 
legitimate influences of one of them may not be 
exerted at all because of the exclusive attention 
given to the other. To prevent this, they want 
science presented in such ways that, if possible, all 
that comes from investigation and discovery shall 
seem to be an aid to religion rather than the oppo- 


PREFACE 


site; and, at the same time, they want religion so 
presented, especially to the young, that it shall not 
seem necessary, or even logical, to associate it with 
prejudice or superstition. 

Fear is not a motive of the highest quality unless 
accompanied by others that can balance or subordi¬ 
nate it; and, as has been proved often, especially 
in religious controversy, it may lead to misrepresen¬ 
tation in speech and to inconsiderateness in action 
that may harm its possessor fully as much as his 
antagonist. It certainly seems desirable to find, if 
possible, some conception of inspiration which, when 
held by all three of these groups, can put an end 
to their fears. What is needed is a conception 
which shall be equally acceptable to Scientists intent 
upon obtaining all that can be proved with reference 
to material nature as a result of thorough investi¬ 
gation and sound reasoning; to Fundamentalists 
intent upon preserving all that may be needed in 
order to insure complete faith in divine inspiration 
and superintendence; and to Liberals intent upon 
acknowledging the logical import of all facts ascer¬ 
tained as a result of studying either the material 
or the spiritual, and, at the same time, upon be¬ 
coming enabled not only to assert that there is no 
conflict between religion and science, but also to 
explain why there is none. 

It was while searching for a conception of this 
character that “The Psychology of Inspiration” was 


PREFACE 


suggested. Its fundamental thought, so far as it is 
possible to trace it, seems to have been this,—that 
in an age in which science has recognized an obli¬ 
gation, as it were, to attempt a thorough study of 
the nature of matter, religion ought to recognize an 
obligation to attempt a parallel study of the nature 
of mind,—in other words, that, as applied to the 
Bible, religion ought to study the methods of inspi¬ 
ration and its effects upon the mind in the same 
way in which science has studied the methods and 
effects upon matter of electricity. Inspiration can 
never be understood in itself; but neither can elec¬ 
tricity, yet there is no end to the practical benefits 
that may be derived from trying to learn something 
about it. 

In carrying out this thought, the volume begins 
by considering the nature and effects upon the mind, 
first, of truth in general, and, after this, of inspired 
truth in particular, this latter being interpreted to 
mean truth that begins its influence upon thinking 
by acting directly upon the sources of thinking 
within the mind itself; and not by acting indirectly 
through using the agency of the eyes or ears or 
other senses that bring the mind into contact with 
the material world outside one’s own body. Strange 
as it may appear, many church members do not 
realize, any more than do secular materialists, that 
there is such an inward influence; though belief in 
it is attributed usually to Theosophy, Christian 


PREFACE 


Science, Spiritualism and adherence to any of the 
various phases of what is termed New Thought. 
Science, too, has studied the influence, and may be 
said to have made two very important contributions 
to a knowledge of it. First, by investigating the 
action of the mind when unconscious or only partly 
conscious of what is outside the body, as in disease, 
dreaming, hypnotism and so-called trance, Science 
has found that the processes of apparently the whole 
mind can be directed and controlled by communica¬ 
tions given not to the conscious mind but to what 
is termed the subconscious, or under-conscious, part 
of it, which communications may sometimes be 
uttered in words that the conscious mind does not 
hear, or sometimes may be merely thought without 
being spoken. The second contribution, which, 
perhaps, is still more important, is the discovery 
that this inward influence, while it directs and con¬ 
trols the spirit or trend of the mind’s activities, 
does not determine their form,—a condition that is 
usually expressed by saying that the action of the 
influence is suggestive, not dictatorial. A man who 
is hypnotized, for instance, carries out in his own 
way the suggestion which the one who has hyp¬ 
notized him has given him. In other words, the 
form in which one who is hypnotized gives expres¬ 
sion to a suggestion is determined by his own 
previous experience, and acquired knowledge and 
character. If, as seems to be the case, this is in 


PREFACE 


accordance with a natural law applicable wherever 
we detect the presence of that which acts as does 
inspirational influence, then how can it be logical 
to suppose that the God of nature would have 
broken his own law when inspiring the writers of 
the Bible? And if it be not logical to suppose this, 
then no one ought to expect the Bible to be free 
from the effects of the inexperience and traditional 
ignorance of the age in which the human writers 
of it lived. To compare a very small matter with 
a very great one, merely because the same general 
principle can be supposed to be applicable to both, 
I once had as a care-taker for my furnace an old- 
time Southern darkey preacher. Occasionally, he 
would inform my family of things that the Lord 
had told him to do. Such statements might have 
secured from some a pious acceptance of these 
things as the right things to do. But they had no 
such influence upon my family. This was not be¬ 
cause we doubted the general truthfulness of his 
character, or the genuineness of his spiritual im¬ 
pulses. We doubted his untrained mind’s ability to 
keep truth clear, and free from superstition. 

There is another aspect of the subject. For what 
purpose was the Bible inspired, and for what pur¬ 
pose is it used to-day? No intelligent man would 
think of ascribing to its Author any other purpose 
than to develop all men’s higher mental and 
spiritual activities; and to develop these requires 


PREFACE 


more than to make a man say or do certain things 
to which he can be directed, as a horse is when he 
is bridled and harnessed. The man himself must 
be made, and this not passively but actively, to 
observe, to think and to feel. Let us extend this 
statement, and apply it to activities more or less 
representative of all those which, as I have tried to 
show in my “Ethics and Natural Law,” distinguish 
the rationally or spiritually minded man from the 
physically or materially minded man. Let us recall 
that, in order to influence that which is spiritual 
as contrasted with that which is material in a man’s 
mental possibilities, we must cause him to exercise, 
in addition to perception, investigation; to instinct, 
intuition; to comparison, constructive imagination; 
to remembrance, reasoning; to associative inference, 
logical inference; to knowledge, belief; to certitude, 
faith; to companionship, communion; to self-inter¬ 
est, generosity and love. Who is so dull as to 
suppose that one of the latter of each of these two 
contrasted activities could be cultivated by a form 
of inspiration that was dictatorial rather than sug¬ 
gestive? And if not, what then? Then we must 
not have a theory which necessitates a belief in a 
dictatorial Bible,—any more, one could add, than 
in a dictatorial church or priest. We must learn to 
recognize exactly what the Apostle Paul meant when 
he said (II Cor. 4:7) that “we have the treasure 


PREFACE 


in earthen vessels,” and that (II Cor. 3:6) while 
“the spirit giveth life,” “the letter killeth.” 

An objection to considering the Bible suggestive 
rather than dictatorial which seems to have great 
influence with many is that it leaves too much to be 
determined by the apparently—but never really, so 
long as a God exists—unaided human mind. A 
sufficient warrant for supposing that leaving this 
for human determination is wise seems to be deriv¬ 
able from the example set by the Great Teacher 
of Galilee. Think to what an extent he submitted 
the acceptance or rejection of what he had to say 
to the good sense and judgment of the common 
people to whom he ministered! 

What is the Bible? In general character, it is 
largely biographical. Whatever is biographical, so 
far as it relates the experiences of a really good man, 
derives its greatest significance and usefulness from 
those parts that unfold the story of the upward 
struggle of his spirit in its endeavors to surmount 
and subordinate the tendencies to error and evil 
incident to his earthly environment. The Bible con¬ 
tains a history of the same struggle as carried on 
through the experiences of fathers and children 
until, after successive generations, they had devel¬ 
oped into a great race. There is no other existing 
book of exactly the same kind. The spiritual aims 
of most of its characters, together with the peculiar 
circumstances of the origin and collocation of its 


PREFACE 


different parts, cause it to be the most important, 
the most interesting and the most inspiring of all 
literary products. But is it inerrant? Could it be 
so, if relating accurately what the men whose lives 
it records thought and said and did? Were ever 
the opinions, words and deeds of large numbers of 
men entirely free from that which one’s reason 
prompted him to condemn? And how is it with 
the contents of the Bible? Its affording almost 
innumerable passages that have become standards 
for conduct and belief does not prevent its contain¬ 
ing things of which the opposite could be said; and 
there are very few, no matter what their theories, 
who do not recognize this fact. Who of us has ever 
heard of anyone willing to adopt as a standard for 
his own conduct, Abraham’s lying (Gen. 20:2), 
Jacob’s cheating (Gen. 27:5-41), or David’s adul¬ 
tery (II Sam. 11:2-26); or willing to adopt, as a 
standard for himself, belief in exterminating war¬ 
fare, such as that to which the Lord was said to 
have ordered Moses and Joshua (Deut. 2:33-37; 
3:3-6; 9:1-4; 12:1-3; Josh. 6:2-26; 10:40; 11:10-12, 
etc.); or in hatred, revenge and cruelty, such as 
are expressed in the imprecatory Psalms of David 
(Ps. 58, 59, 69, 83, 109 and 140)? And what is it 
that causes a man to reject such standards? It is 
his contrasting them with the standards that exist 
in his own divinely planned mind. It is because 
his conscience; or, as we might say, imitating the 


PREFACE 


ancient Romans, and the present French, his con¬ 
sciousness has enabled him to distinguish—not al¬ 
ways absolutely, but adequately for the purpose— 
what is good and true from what is bad and false. 

Of course, we must not assign to our own minds 
too great, or anything like absolute, authority. Not 
to use the Bible because considering our own minds 
inerrant, is just as unfortunate as not to use our 
minds because considering the Bible inerrant. In 
this world, most of us need all the help that we 
can derive from any source whatever; and after 
we have obtained all that we can get, we have 
hardly begun to receive that which can prevent our 
best results from revealing many humiliating evi¬ 
dences of our own mistakes and weaknesses. But 
even these may increase, rather than lessen, the de¬ 
velopment of that in us which is of much greater 
importance than they. It may increase our feeling 
of dependence, in every presented emergency, upon a 
Source of Efficiency that seems above and beyond all 
agencies that we ourselves can control,—a feeling 
which many who are wise deem essential before 
there can follow any whole hearted and constant 
exercise of that most rational as well as fundamental 
of all a spiritually minded man’s characteristics,— 
religious faith. 


George L. Raymond. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

PAGE 

Conditions of Prevailing Thought Which Occasioned This Book— 
Comprehensive Character of the Results Reached in It—In¬ 
spiration and Revelation—Apparent Inaccuracy in the Hebraic 
and Christian Scriptures—No Writings or Utterances Sup¬ 
posed to Be Inspired Are Free from Ambiguity, or from the 
Liability of Being Interpreted Differently—A Logical Mind 
Can Not Accept This Condition Unless It Perceive Some Rea¬ 
son for It—This Reason Must Be Found, if at All, in the Na¬ 
ture of the Spirit Inspiring, of Which We Can Not Know ; or 
of the Man or Mankind Inspired, of Which We Can Know.... 1 

CHAPTER I 

THE NATURE OF TRUTH AS INDICATED BY WHAT MEN 
SEEK WHEN THEY SEARCH FOR IT, AND THINK 
THAT THEY FIND WHEN THEY OBTAIN IT 

Methods Through Which It Is Proposed to Ascertain the Nature 
of Truth—Scientists and Philosophers Search for Truth as 
Something Behind Appearances in Space—And in Time— 
Therefore Conceive It to Be Not Alone in the Appearances 
Themselves—But in These as Related to Certain Methods of 
Operation—Same Facts Shown by the Treatment Given to 
Formal Statements—The Truth in Them Discovered by Re¬ 
garding Relations to Surrounding Circumstances—Therefore 
to Methods of Operation—Absolute Truth as Existing Without 
Reference to Relations—Necessity of Considering Methods of 
Operation Shown by What Men Find When They Think That 
They Have Obtained Truth—Meanings of the Adjective True 
—Further Meanings—Its Meanings When Material or Bodily 
Conditions Are Compared With Mental or Spiritual — Its 
Meanings When Applied to Language—The False in Language 
Is a Want of Conformity to a Method of Operation in a Mental 
Process—Summary of the Meanings of the Word True —Of the 
Word Truth . 9 



Xll 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER II 

THE NATURE OF TRUTH AS INDICATED BY WHAT MEN 
DO WHEN RECEIVING AND IMPARTING 
ITS INFLUENCE 

i 

Objections to the View Presented in the First Chapter—Truth, as 
Exprest in Language, Should Not Be Confounded with the 
Formula ; Illustrated from Methods of Interpreting the Bible 
—Its History Noteworthy for the Methods of Life Which It 
Illustrates—Its Prophecies Valuable for Their Fulfilment Not 
Only, but Applicability to Laws Operating Everywhere—Con¬ 
firmation of This Principle of Interpretation of the Bible in Its 
Explanations—Its Arguments—Its Injunctions—Real Meaning 
Lost When Truth Is Supposed to Be Conformed to Formulae 
Alone, and Not Also to Methods of Operation—The Use of the 
Word Truth in the Bible—Illustrations—Inferences—Truth Is 
Perceived in the Process of Searching for It—Supposing 
Change Inconsistent with Absoluteness in Truth Is a Source 
of Both Infidelity and Bigotry—Right Views of Truth as a 
Corrective of These—The Truth in Revealed and Natural 
Religion Connected with a Conception of Method—One Recog¬ 
nizing This May Be a Friend to Both Progress and Perma¬ 
nence—Inferences from the View Here Presented—A Few 
Forms in Space May Reveal Universal Methods—One Mind 
May Represent God—And One Life, if Full of Love—The Mis¬ 
sion of the Friend—Comfort in This Suggestion—The Changes 
of a Few Moments May Reveal Universal Methods—Child or 
Man with Short or Long Life May Both Have Experience of 
Them. 


CHAPTER III 

THE MIND’S SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SPIRITUAL OR IN¬ 
SPIRATIONAL, AS CONTRASTED WITH 
MATERIAL, INFLUENCES 

To What Men Refer When Using the Term Inspiration—When 
Using the Term Spiritual—Considered an Influence Not Trace¬ 
able to the Conscious Sphere of the Mind—But Traceable to 
or Through an Inner or Subconscious Sphere—Proofs of the 
Existence of This Sphere, as in Memory, Fright, Fever, Hyp¬ 
notism—Subconscious Philosophical and Mathematical Intel¬ 
lection-Resulting from Previous Conscious Action, as in 



CONTENTS 


TAG' 

Skill—Not Resulting from Previous Conscious Action : Co¬ 
burn, Mozart, Blind Tom—Subconscious Diagnosis of Disease 
at a Distance—Subconscious Apprehension of Distant Occur¬ 
rences—Both in Space and Time—Mind-Reading—Automatic 
Writing—Apparitions—Connection Between Such Facts and 
Belief in a Future State of Rewards and Punishments—Often 
Attributed to Natural Material Causes—Should Be Attrib¬ 
uted to Influences from Nature’s Occult Side —Shown in 
Susceptibility of the Primitive, Uneducated Man to Such In¬ 
fluences—Instinct and Reason—Instinctive and Rational—In 
stinctive and Religious—Instinctive and Animal—Story o: 
the Fall—The Mental Actions of Animals—Of Negroes, In¬ 
dians, and Those Subject to Hallucinations, with Inferences 
Therefrom—Like Inferences with Reference to the Origin of 
Religion Drawn from Primitive Religious Customs—With 
Growth of Intelligence, Physical Occult Manifestations Are 
Considered Less Important Than Verbal—But the Verbal Con¬ 
tinue to Be Associated with Subconscious Intellection. 51 


CHAPTER IV 

THE MIND’S CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CONSCIOUS INTEL¬ 
LECTION TO THAT WHICH IS RECEIVED THROUGH 

THE SUBCONSCIOUS 

Subconscious and Conscious Influences Manifested in All Forms 
of Intellection—Value of That Obtainable from the Former 
Depends on the Character of That Given by the Latter—Ob¬ 
ligation of an Inspired Man to Interpret Promptings from 
the Subconscious by His Conscious Intellection—Fulfilment 
of This Obligation Characteristic of Writers—Consequent In¬ 
tellectual Progress Connected with This Form of Inspired 
Communication — Recognizing Relationship of Christian to 
Other Forms of Inspiration Does Not Impair the Authen¬ 
ticity and Authority of the Christian Scriptures—Or Lessen 
One’s Veneration for Them—Nor Does the Acknowledgment 
That Signs and Wonders Are Wrought in Other Religions— 
The Testimony of the Christian Scriptures Upon This Subject 
—Rationality of the Scriptural Test as Applied to Spiritism 
—Hudson’s Theory—Importance of Investigating Spiritism— 
The Dangers Attendant Upon Accepting, Without Thinking, 
Its So-called Revelations Also Threaten Those Accepting, in 
the Same Way, Revelation in Any Other Form. 


92 




XIV 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER Y 

THE NECESSARILY SUGGESTIVE CHARACTER OF IN¬ 
SPIRED OR REVEALED TRUTH 

PAGE 

Ambiguity and Indefiniteness Seem Characteristic of the Com¬ 
munications Received Through Inspiration and Revelation— 

The Method of Action of the Inner Sphere of the Mind May 
Render This Result Necessary—We Can Study This Method 
Through the Analogous Methods of Hypnotism—Limitations 
of This Study—Hypnotism Influences Through Suggestion, 
Which Leaves Expression Free and, When Influencing Differ¬ 
ent Minds, Different—The Bearing of This Argument—Analo¬ 
gies from Hypnotism May Explain Many Things Assigned to 
Spiritual Influence in the Scriptures—This Is so of Conver¬ 
sion—Of Atonement, of Spiritual Unity, of Creation, of Proba¬ 
tion, of Life After Death—Suggestive Revelation May Be More 
Influential Than Dictatorial—Additional Evidence of This— 
Suggestive Control in Religion Conforms to Divine Control as 
Manifested in External Nature—Suggestive Nature of Re¬ 
vealed Truth Already Widely Acknowledged by Christians— 

This Acknowledgment Not Antagonistic to Continued Study 
of the Scriptures—Illustration of the Way in Which the Same 
Inspired Truth May Be Exprest in Different Forms—Different 
Legends in Different Religions May Give Expression to the 
Same Fundamental Truth—Influence of This Fact Upon Fu¬ 
ture Theologians. 107 


CHAPTER VI 

SIGNIFICANCE AND FORM IN SUGGESTED TRUTH 

A. Conception Impressing Our Minds Is Not Identical with a 
Word Expressing It—The Latter Is a Result of Materializing 
the Conception—Use of Materialized Conceptions by Man 
and by the Creator—Universal^ Recognition of This Use—Ap¬ 
propriateness of Its Use in Inspiration and Revelation—How 
This Fact Modifies Certain Current Conceptions—Differences 
Between Scientific and Religious Truth — Application to 
Statements in the Bible — Rendering These Conformable to 
Reason—And to Philanthropy—Degrees of the Credibility of 
the Influence Occultly Exerted Through the Subconscious— 
Depends Upon the Truthfulness of the Suggestion Given It 
as a Premise—The Truthfulness of This Suggestion and of Its 
Results Must be Determined by the Action of Some Con- 



CONTENTS 


XV 


scious Mind—Whose Conscious Mind This Is—It Is a Mind In¬ 
fluenced by Heredity and Environment—This Explains the 
Development of the Truth as Revealed in the Bible—The Ex¬ 
planation Accords with Biblical Statements—With General 
Opinion—This Conception Does Not Render Biblical Truth 
Less Determinant. 134 


CHAPTER VII 

THE RATIONAL METHOD OF INTERPRETING BIBLICAL 

STATEMENTS 

Theories of Modern Biblical Critics—How to Reconcile with the 
Conception of Inspiration the Conception That Parts of the 
Bible Are Compiled from Other Writers—Scriptural Warrants 
for Testing by the Conscious Mind the Truth Coming Through 
the Subconscious—The Test Afforded by the Results of Previ¬ 
ous Information—Of Intuitive Insight—Of Logical Inference 
—Application of Faith to Matters Beyond the Reach of Con¬ 
scious Information, Intuition, or Inference. 158 

CHAPTER VIII 

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST INTERPRETING BIB¬ 
LICAL STATEMENTS AS SUGGESTIVE AND NOT 

DICTATORIAL 

The View Presented in the Preceding Chapter Seems to Subject 
the Truth of God to the Judgment of Man—This Method in 
Analogy with Other Ways in Which Man is Expected to In¬ 
terpret Divine Truth—Nature and Experience Influence Him 
so as to Cultivate His Power of Acting Rationally—Effect of 
This Upon the Young—We Should Expect the Same Method 
to Be Pursued in Revelation: Impossibility of Any Other 
Method Except the Suggestive in Communicating Spiritual 
Truth—The Error of Interpreting the Scriptures Literally.... 169 

CHAPTER IX 

CHRISTIAN DOGMATISM AS AFFECTED BY CONSIDER¬ 
ING SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

Conclusions Reached in Preceding Chapter—Confirmation of These 
Afforded by the Scriptures—These Conclusions Are Not Ac¬ 
cepted by Christians in General—Deleterious Effects of This 




CONTENTS 


;;vi 


PAGE 

Manifested in Diminished Attendance Upon Church Services 
—The Church Should Remedy This Condition—Origin of Dog¬ 
matism, Intolerance, and the Dark Ages—Dogmatism and In¬ 
tolerance as Irrational as Uncharitable—Creeds Should Not 
Be Made a Test of Christian Character—Applied to the Doc¬ 
trine of Inspiration—Injurious Effects of Applying Such a 
Test in Connection with This Doctrine—Same Principle Ex¬ 
emplified with Reference to the Doctrine of the Personality of 
God—The Trinity—The ImmaculatetConception and Incarna¬ 
tion—The Method of Salvation—The Problem in Salvation—Its 
Solution in the Work of the Christ—How Dogmatism, Tho 
Based Upon This Solution, Does Harm—Not Only Among 
Christians, but Non-Christians, as Buddhists and Moham¬ 
medans—Same Principle Applied to Doctrine of Eternal Pun¬ 
ishment-Certainty with Reference to Spiritual Truth Not 
Justifiable—Illustration of the Practical Evils of This Atti¬ 
tude. 178 


CHAPTER X 

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS AFFECTED BY CONSIDER¬ 
ING SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

The Church Not an End but a Means—The Church Intended to 
Influence Opinion, Inclination, and Conduct—Opinion Most 
Influenced Not by Authority, but by Thought—Illustrations 
from History—Same Principle Applied to the Influence Ex¬ 
erted Upon Belief by the Numbers Attending Any One Church 
—Or Exerted Upon Expressions of Belief—External Unity of 
the Church May Be Detrimental to Influence of Thought as 
Thought—Influence of Thought as Thought, Aside from the 
Influence of Authority Upon Christian Opinion—And Upon 
Conduct—Reasons for This—The Conception of the Church 
Which Harmonizes with the Testimony Afforded by Historic 
Christianity—By the Primitive Church—Enforced Unity of 
the Church Is Not the Spiritual Unity of Christians—Nor Is It 
Made Prominent Where the Church Is Growing—The Church 
as Influencing Inclinations Through Rites or Rituals—Wor¬ 
ship Can Not Be Exprest Through Argumentative or Dog¬ 
matic Language—Neglect of This Principle in English Cathe¬ 
drals—In Assemblies of Those of Divergent Views—Principle 
Applied to Hymns—To Prayers and Repetitions of Creeds— 
The Church in Influencing Conduct Is Sometimes Dictatorial, 
Sometimes Prohibitive, but Usually Negative —The Chris- 



CONTENTS 


XVII 


PAGE 

tianity of the Christ Is Positive—The Christian Must Do More 
Than Seek His Own Salvation—Development in the Church 
of the Feeling of Individual Responsibility—Further Develop¬ 
ments to Be Expected in the Future—These Theories Not Due 
to Lack of Appreciation of the Work of the Church. 210 

CHAPTER XI 

CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE AND CONDUCT AS AFFECTED 
BY CONSIDERING SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

Important to Consider the Church’s Influence Upon the Indi¬ 
vidual— Supposed Origin of Subconscious Tendencies — The 
Important Matter Is to Recognize That They Exist, and Are 
Often Antagonistic—The Antagonism Is Caused by a Con¬ 
sciousness, Which We Term Conscience, That One Tendency 
Has Superior Claims to Another—The Nature and Function of 
Conscience—Its Promptings from the Subconscious Different 
in Different Minds—Character of the Influence from the Sub¬ 
conscious to Some Extent Under One’s Control—The Result of 
Environment and Habit—The Influence of Conscious Repeti¬ 
tion—The Influence of Rituals and Rites—Overbalanced by 
the Influence of Example—Reasons for This—Futility of Con¬ 
fining Efforts for Reformation of Character to Effects Merely 
Addressing the Eye or Ear—Influence of Example Upon the 
Subconscious Mind. 247 


CHAPTER XII 

CHRISTIAN FAITH AS AFFECTED BY CONSIDERING 
SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

Suggestion Influences One Differently When in a Conscious and 
in a Subconscious State—In Either State, He Surrenders Con¬ 
trol of His Subconscious Mentality to One Alone in Whom He 
Has Confidence—Importance of Noticing This Influence of 
Personality—Its Relation to Christian Faith and Conversion 
—To Preaching and Revivals—Faith Not Peculiar to Chris¬ 
tianity—Nature of Christian Faith—Faithfulness and Fidelity 
Essential to It—But Not Perfection of Character—Faith as In¬ 
fluenced by the Agencies Employed by the Church, as in For¬ 
mulation—Error Necessarily Introduced Into This—Two II 
lustrations—Influence of Church Authority—Influence Upon 
Faith of the Historic Christ—How Faith Necessitates Free¬ 
dom of Mental Action—Scriptural Warrant for This. 265 





XV111 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER XIII 

UNITY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AS AFFECTED BY CON¬ 
SIDERING SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

PAGE 

Principles Unfolded in the Preceding Chapter Can Be Applied in 
All Religions—What Are the Most Common and Universal 
Religious Conceptions—Communications from Bad and Good 
Spirits—Homage Appeasing the First, and Soliciting Favors 
from the Second, Who Are Often Supposed to Be Heroes and 
Ancestors—Formulation of Opinions Concerning These and 
Their Teachings Into Systems of Belief, as by Copernicus, 
Zoroaster, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, and the Christ—Chris¬ 
tianity Not Necessarily Antagonistic to Other Religions, as 
Shown by Its Holding Many Similar Beliefs—Acknowledging 
Certain of the Truths in These Religions Might Benefit Chris¬ 
tianity—This Need Not Imply Acknowledging That Every¬ 
thing in Any Other System Is True—Nor Need It Throw 
Discredit Upon Missionary Effort, but Lead It to Emphasize in 
Christianity That which Is Lacking in Other Systems, and Is 
Essential in Its Own—Religious Unity—This Must Begin by 
First Acknowledging the Truth Common to All Religions.... 287 

CHAPTER XIV 

CERTAIN OTHER PROBLEMS MADE SOLVABLE BY THE 
THEORY PRESENTED IN THIS BOOK 

Reconciliation Between the Claims of Inspiration and Apparent 
Inaccuracy and Contradiction in the Text Giving It Expres¬ 
sion—Between the Claims of Absolute, Eternal, and Infinite 
Truth and the Apparent Impossibility of Stating or Deter¬ 
mining This ; Pragmatism—In What Sense, Value, or Worth, 
Emphasized in Pragmatism, Is a Test of Truth—Difference 
Between Knowledge Which Is Applied to a Part and Faith 
Which Is Applied to a Whole—Illustration—Difference Be¬ 
tween This View and That of Pragmatism — Reconciliation 
Between the Full Acceptance of Revealed Truth and the Full 
Exercise of Reason—Between Liberality of Thought and Honest 
Acceptance of the Christian System, Applied to Those Not 
Members of the Church—To Scientists—Applied to Members 
of the Church—Reconciliation Between Complete Adherence 
to One’s Own Religious Views and Complete Toleration of 
the Views of Others—Between Others’ Acceptance of the Truth 
in One’s Own System and Conservation of the Truth in Theirs 


CONTENTS 


XIX 


PAGE 

— Between Rationality or Intelligence and Spirituality or 
Faith—The Material and the Spiritual—Spirituality—If In¬ 
spired Truth Be Suggestive, Spirituality and Faith Can Fol¬ 
low It with No Lessening of the Exercise of Intelligence and 
Reason—Conclusion. 306 


INDEX 


337 










THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


INTRODUCTION 


Conditions of Prevailing Thought Which Occasioned This Book—Com¬ 
prehensive Character of the Results Reached in It—Inspiration and 
Revelation—Apparent Inaccuracy in the Hebraic and Christian 
Scriptures—No Writings or Utterances Supposed to Be Inspired 
Are Free from Ambiguity, or from the Liability of Being Inter¬ 
preted Differently—A Logical Mind Can Not Accept This Con¬ 
dition Unless It Perceive Some Reason for It—This Reason 
Must Be Found, if at All, in the Nature of the Spirit Inspiring, of 
Which We Can Not Know; or of the Man or Mankind Inspired, 
of Which We Can Know. 

One who mingles much with educated men in our 
country will find large numbers of them doubting 
whether a modern mind, trained to observe scientifically 
and to reason logically, can without bias accept as 
true the form of religion most prevalent in our times, 
or, indeed, any religion, and yet honestly weigh all the 
arguments that can be brought against it. There 
must be some reason for their doubting this. To at¬ 
tribute the reason to the false working of their minds, 
as contrasted with the right working of the minds of 
other people, would be manifestly uncharitable and 
illogical. The doubters themselves are often men of ex¬ 
ceptional capability and conscientiousness. All minds, 
of course, have their idiosyncrasies; but these alone 
are not sufficient to account for similar effects produced 
upon large classes of men who, above all things, are 


2 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

thinkers. There must be something and often much 
in the external conditions to cause these effects. In 
the case that we are considering, the external condi¬ 
tions are the forms in which are presented what are 
termed the truths of religion. So far as a mind does 
not accept these forms because of something in them¬ 
selves, we must hold that this something is either 
essential to the truth that is in the form or that it is 
non-essential to this truth. If essential, then there 
seems to be no escape from concluding that supposed 
truth which can not stand the tests of modern science 
and reasoning must, sooner or later, become wholly 
discredited. If non-essential, then every effort should 
be made to change the method of interpreting it and of 
separating it, so far as possible, from the essential. The 
pages that follow have been written upon the hypothesis 
that the latter supposition is correct, as well as to show 
why this may be supposed to be the case, and how the 
conditions occasioning it may be met. 

An endeavor to deal with such subjects as these is 
an undertaking for which, in the present state of re¬ 
ligious thought and life, no earnest man writing for 
earnest men need make excuses. One fact, however, 
in justice to the author ought to be stated. When he 
entered upon his work he had no conception of the com¬ 
prehensiveness of the inferences which would logically 
follow upon obtaining from it any definite results. 
These inferences, one after another, have unfolded 
themselves from his line of thought as naturally as a 


INTRODUCTION 


3 


bud bursts through a branch from which it springs. 
Indeed, they have seemed inevitable; as inevitable to 
him as to some they must seem revolutionary. Not¬ 
withstanding their revolutionary semblance, however, 
and the consequent repulsion with which many a 
cautious and conscientious mind will undoubtedly 
greet them, it is his opinion that for the momentous 
problems involved the general conclusions reached 
afford the only rational and, at the same time, con¬ 
servative and safe solution. 

The subject to be developed necessitates making a 
thorough study of what is termed, when applied to its 
source, inspiration, and, when applied to its results, 
revelation. One must begin by ascertaining, if he 
can, how far the Church, or the Christian community, 
has a correct conception of their character, and there¬ 
fore of the form of guidance which they are fitted to 
give. In order to answer these questions, the author, 
when he entered upon his work, tried first to determine, 
if possible, the nature of truth in general. But, very 
soon, the necessary connection between this subject 
and the particular religious aspects of it that occasioned 
the study rendered inevitable an extensive examination 
into the methods of statement and phraseology em¬ 
ployed in the Hebraic and Christian Scriptures. 

No one can honestly pursue such an examination 
for any considerable time without finding all his con¬ 
ceptions of the importance of his undertaking confirmed. 
In not a few but many cases what is said in the Scrip- 


4 


THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


tures is apparently, at least, inaccurate. Quite fre¬ 
quently certain of their statements do not seem to ac¬ 
cord with certain other of their statements; or with 
accepted principles of common sense and right con¬ 
duct; or with well-ascertained facts of history and of 
science. Notice that the phrase used is “ apparently ” 
inaccurate. Many of the passages, upon examination, 
prove not to be so in reality. Possibly all of them 
could be proved not to be so. But “apparently ” they 
are so. Nor that this should be the case will seem 
strange to any one who merely recalls the thousands of 
books crowding every large theological library which 
have been written for the sole purpose of proving that, 
in references made to subjects of which they treat, 
Biblical inaccuracy, tho apparent, is not—when the 
words are properly interpreted and understood—ac¬ 
tual; for the purpose of proving, in other words, that 
in many cases the Scriptures either do not say what 
they mean or do not mean what they say. 

As implied in the opening paragraph of this Intro¬ 
duction, the first inclination of a mind, influenced at 
all by the condition just indicated, is to discredit the 
Scriptures altogether, as well as the whole system of 
religion unfolded in them. How can one believe that 
to be true, is asked, which, in so many of its details, 
appears to be untrue? If, with this question upon his 
lips, one still cling to a hope in the existence of inspira¬ 
tion, his next move will be to discover, if possible, some 
form of supposed revelation that is not charaterized 


INTROD NOTION 


5 


by what seems inaccuracy. No one acquainted with 
the subject fails to know that this is something which 
one may seek forever and not find. Every student of 
the influence exerted by such writings as the Vedas, 
the Zend-Avesta, the Koran, or the Mormon Bible 
knows that what is true of the Hebraic and Christian 
Scriptures is true of all the others. All have given rise 
to different sects whose differences have been occasioned 
by different methods of understanding and of inter¬ 
preting the same passages in the same writings. But 
besides writings, there are other agencies through 
which it is supposed that spiritual truth can be re¬ 
vealed. In certain communities there are official 
leaders, who individually, as in the Roman and Mor¬ 
mon churches, or collectively, as in churches that make 
much of councils, are credited with giving forth what 
they have to say under, at least, divine superintendence. 
But this superintendence does not prevent the same 
conditions occasioned by sacred writings. There is 
apparently no end to the different interpretations given 
to the same utterances; or to the different degrees in 
which these utterances are supposed to be inspired. 
Besides official religious leaders, there have been also 
—and, apparently, from the beginning of history— 
individuals whose claim to inspiration has been based 
upon evidence which they themselves have been sup¬ 
posed to furnish. They are represented in our own 
time and country by the clairvoyants and mediums of 
what is termed spiritism. Are the communications 


6 


THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


of these then characterized, as a rule, by accuracy? 
Certainly not; and, probably, few intelligent spiritists 
would think otherwise. Each of these, apparently, has 
a way of attributing a part of what seems revealed to 
some undeveloped or—what the outside world would 
term—evil spirit. This fact alone—and no one will 
dispute it— is sufficient to show that the spiritists have 
not found everything supposed to be revealed to be 
equally trustworthy. Moreover, besides this, many of 
them, probably the majority, refuse to accept much 
that is accredited to those whom they consider highly 
developed spirits, owing, as is said, to the different 
“conditions” prevailing in the spirit-wo rid and in 
our own. 

It is evident, in view of such facts, that a logical 
mind must do one of two things—either reject wholly 
everything in the nature of inspiration, or, for some 
reasons that need not now be discust, accept a part 
of it. So much that is best in the world has been di¬ 
rectly traceable to the influence of the latter course 
that one would not like to abandon it without a struggle. 
But how can he not abandon it and yet act rationally? 
Phis is one of the questions involving, more or less, all 
of the others, which this book has been written to an¬ 
swer. At first, as has been intimated, the author had 
hoped to answer it by such a study of the nature of 
truth and of the consequent methods of interpreting 
passages supposed to communicate it as is made in this 
book between pages 9 and 49, Chapters I and II. But 




INTR OD UCTION 


7 


after a little a different conclusion was necessitated. 
All that is unfolded in these chapters is relevant to the 
subject, and important, so far as it goes. But it does 
not go deep enough, nor is it broad enough in its ap¬ 
plicability. Suppose it to be all true. Suppose the 
Christian Scriptures—suppose all writings or utter¬ 
ances of an inspired religious leader or teacher—to re¬ 
quire, as there indicated, an interpretation according 
to some method of philosophic inquiry, historic research, 
or literary criticism. Why should this be the case? 
Why should they not have been so indited as to be 
understood by that vast majority of people who are not 
philosophers, historians, or litterateurs? Why should 
any communications be so written or uttered as to 
render not only probable but possible innumerable 
misinterpretations? How can we reconcile an am¬ 
biguous result with attributing it to an Omniscient 
Cause aiming to produce the opposite? In no way 
whatever. Our only logical conclusion must be that 
there was no reason for seeking to avoid the divergences 
of interpretation that so perplex us. 

Why, then, was there no reason for this? In view of 
the Source to which religious people ascribe the am¬ 
biguous result, the answer must be that any different 
result was not necessary, or not possible, or, at least, 
not in accordance with the requirements of the condi¬ 
tions. Of what conditions? Of those pertaining, on 
the one hand, to the Spirit inspiring, and, on the other 
hand, to the man, and the mankind, inspired. With 


8 


THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


reference to one of these factors—the conditions per* 
taining to the Spirit—we can, of course, only make sur- 
misals. With reference to the other factor, however— 
the conditions pertaining to man or mankind—it is 
different. These are clearly within the reach of human 
understanding. To investigate the methods in which 
the mind can receive and utilize any influence what¬ 
ever that affects it is a perfectly legitimate function 
of psychology, and this is that which is to be done in 
the present volume. In order to avoid going outside 
of the province of psychology, and to keep the lines of 
thought within what all will acknowledge to be logical 
limits, few references, and these only indirect ones, will 
be made to purely theological questions such as other¬ 
wise one might wish to discuss—questions like those 
concerning the nature of the inspirational influences 
considered in themselves, and the differences in their 
sources and effects. The character of the general ar¬ 
gument to be presented, and the considerations pre¬ 
sumably having weight with those for whom it was 
chiefly written, seemed to demand that it should deal 
almost exclusively, as the reader will find that it does, 
with an examination of the evidences of the mind’s 
being adapted by nature to be affected according to 
the methods which in religion are attributed to in¬ 
spiration, and, in connection with this, an examination 
of the ways in which, when so affected, the mind 
naturally expresses itself in thought, word, and action. 


CHAPTER I 


THE NATURE OF TRUTH AS INDICATED BY WHAT MEK 
SEEK WHEN THEY SEARCH FOR IT, AND THINK 
THAT THEY FIND WHEN THEY OBTAIN IT 

Methods Through Which It Is Proposed to Ascertain the Nature of 
Truth—Scientists and Philosophers Search for Truth as Some¬ 
thing Behind Appearances in Space—And in Time—Therefore 
Conceive It to Be Not Alone in the Appearances Themselves—But 
in These as Related to Certain Methods of Operation—Same Facts 
Shown by the Treatment Given to Formal Statements—The Truth 
in Them Discovered by Regarding Relations to Surrounding Cir¬ 
cumstances—Therefore to Methods of Operation—Absolute Truth 
as Existing Without Reference to Relations—Necessity of Con¬ 
sidering Methods of Operation Shown by What Men Find When 
They Think That They Have Obtained Truth—Meanings of the 
Adjective True —Further Meanings—Its Meanings When Material 
or Bodily Conditions Are Compared With Mental or Spiritual—Its 
Meanings When Applied to Language—The False in Language Is 
a Want of Conformity to a Method of Operation in a Mental 
Process—Summary of the Meanings of the Word True —Of the 
Word Truth. 

The object of this essay is to consider, in view of im¬ 
portant facts indicated in the Introduction, the nature 
and influence upon thought and action of what is termed 
inspired or revealed truth. This object necessitates, 
first, an understanding of what is meant by truth in 
general. To determine this, the most sensible way 
seems to be to ascertain, if we can, exactly what it is 
that men who use the term mean by it. How can we 
best ascertain this? By examining their definitions of 
it? Certainly. But we can do more. As we all know. 


10 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSP1RATION 

actions sometimes speak louder than words. There¬ 
fore, in connection with such definitions of the truth 
as men have formulated consciously, let us observe 
their actions also when dealing with it; and the con¬ 
ceptions of it which these actions unconsciously reveal. 
While pursuing this course, in order to reach results 
sufficiently comprehensive, let us start with an analysis, 
as complete as we can make, of the different methods 
through which such self-revelations can be rendered 
possible. Of these methods, we shall find that there 
are three; in other words, that men indicate their con¬ 
ceptions of the nature of truth by their dealings, first, 
with its sources; second, with its substance; and, third, 
with its results; or, to extend each of these three heads, 
first, by what they seek when they search for the truth; 
second, by what they think that they find when they 
obtain it; and, third, by what they do when they re¬ 
ceive or impart its influence. 

In accordance with this analysis, let us begin by 
learning what we can from the sources to which, when 
searching for truth, men are accustomed to attribute 
it. Through observing what they seek in such cases, 
we certainly ought to gather some suggestions with 
reference to what they think it to be when obtained. 
Scientists and philosophers investigate, as we say, the 
appearances surrounding them. But what in these do 
they investigate? Merely the appearances as appear¬ 
ances? Do they believe that they can obtain the truth 
thus—even a part of it, to say nothing of the whole of 


THE NATURE OF TRUTH 


11 


it? Not at all. They often tear each superficial ap¬ 
pearance into shreds. To detect its subtle elements, 
they hunt for them as for hidden treasure. Then, look¬ 
ing, if possible, through the elements, they strain their 
vision onward and inward, as if, beyond the whole ma¬ 
terial fabric, were something for which they still must 
search. Their efforts often are of no avail. They 

4 / 

prove, at least, that each who undertakes them has a 
firm conviction that the truth can be discovered through 
the outward forms of nature, else why should he ex¬ 
amine them? And they prove, as well, his firm con¬ 
viction that the truth itself is not to be attributed to 
anything that is wholly in the outward forms, else why 
should he, in his examination, try to probe beneath 
them? 

Appearances are not confined to stationary forms. 
Another element is potent in the universe. The folds 
upon earth’s mighty vestment rise and fall. The fickle 
shadows come and go. The brilliant colors separate 
and blend. One listens and he hears the bustle of per¬ 
petual movement. He infers that somewhere under¬ 
neath the movement there must throb a heart of life; 
that there must be an occasioning condition, and that 
connected with the condition he shall be able to discover 
the truth. And so he uses other tests upon the forms. 
He puts them through augmented changes for experi¬ 
ment. He boils, he burns, he dissipates, he fuses, he 
compounds them. His efforts often end in no discov¬ 
eries, and yet they prove, at least, his firm conviction 


12 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

that the truth may be discovered through the outward 
changes, else why should he examine them? They 
prove, as well, his firm conviction that the truth itself 
is not to be attributed to anything that is wholly in the 
outward changes, else why should he, in each experi¬ 
ment, try so hard to attain to that which has condi¬ 
tioned them? 

Indeed, if the truth were wholly in outward shapes 
or changes, why would it not be patent to the eyes of 
every one? To recognize it, what would be the need 
of more consideration than a single superficial glance? 
Yet all the world admit that truth is something that in 
any large degree is revealed alone to one with penetra¬ 
tion, perseverance, and a more than ordinary measure 
of intelligence. 

But to say that the truth for which these men are 
searching lies not wholly in the outward shape or 
change is to make no more than a negation. Consid¬ 
ered positively, what is this truth? As has been said, 
it is something underneath appearances in space or in 
time. But is it underneath appearances in one of these 
alone, or in both? The moment that the question is 
asked, every one must answer “In both.” The rocks, 
as they appear in space alone, can never teach what is 
meant by geologic truth; nor can the stars, when merely 
standing still “like Joshua’s sun at Ajalon,” teach what 
is meant by astronomic truth. To the study of rocks or 
stars as they appear in space these searchers after truth 
must always join a conception of the influence of time. 


THE NA TUBE OF TR UTII 


13 


It is this conception alone which causes the scientist 
to break apart the rocks in order to detect their evi¬ 
dences of development, or to adjust his telescope to the 
stars in order to make out their variations of movement. 
So with effects that appear in time. No one can under¬ 
stand the truth w T ith reference to the successive notes 
of a trumpet or a violin until he has studied the rela¬ 
tive contractions of the spaces through which different 
quantities of wind have passed, or the relative spaces 
through which different chords have been stretched, 
or have been made to vibrate. Now, granting this to be 
as stated, what is the truth which, as a result of examin¬ 
ing effects both in space and in time, the man, at last, 
imagines himself to have discovered? What is it, ex¬ 
cept what may be termed the method of operation? The 
truth concerning a tree is learned when it is ascertained 
how that bulk which is apprehended in space has been 
affected by that growth which is apprehended in time. 
The truth concerning a tune is learned when it is ascer¬ 
tained how that note which is apprehended in time has 
been affected by that string which is apprehended in 
space. With this conception in mind, let us go back 
now to notice if it be confirmed by what we know of the 
aims of the scientist or the philosopher. We need not 
linger long here. All recognize that no one is a scientist 
in reality who merely knows, no matter how extensively, 
the surface-facts with reference to shapes or changes. 
Before we can call him this, we must believe that he has 
looked beneath appearances, and through their agency 


14 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOE 

has been led to apprehend, if not to comprehend, the 
operations and the methods of the operations which 
have brought things to their present state, and which 
are manifested in the fulfilment of what are termed 
laws. And is it not a fact that a man is acknowledged 
to rank high in science and philosophy in the degree 
alone in which he has been able to discover and to prove 
that certain of these methods operate identically be¬ 
neath phenomena that in themselves are different? 
Did not Newton, Spencer, and Darwin attain their 
eminence mainly because, in the opinion of their follow¬ 
ers, they had the penetration to detect some one of 
these methods whose operations can be illustrated by 
analogous occurrences in all the different departments 
and developments of nature? Some method of this 
kind, some principle of inevitable applicability, accord¬ 
ing to which each endeavors to explain the facts of 
nature—in other words, to which each endeavors to 
show that these facts conform—constitutes the basis 
of his scientific or philosophic system. This is that, in 
order to discover which the shapes and changes of the 
universe have been examined by him. This is that 
which, when discovered, he considers to be the truth. 

That such is the case is exemplified by his treatment 
not only of the forms of nature, but of the statements of 
others representing what, before his time, they have 
learned from these forms. It is exemplified in his treat¬ 
ment even of verbal statements that he believes to con¬ 
tain the truth. Take, for instance—because directly 



THE NATURE OF TRUTH 


15 


in line with the chief object of our inquiry—the way 
in which a Biblical scholar examines the text of the 
Scriptures even when he considers it to be inerrant. 
Is he satisfied to accept the surface-meaning of the text? 
Does he not rather search beneath it, just as we have 
found that scientists do when trying to discover the 
truth through the forms of matter? He doubts, he 
reexamines, and with any number of learned opinions 
weighed against his own decision, not infrequently, he 
ventures to uphold it. In doing this, he proves that he 
believes that the truth, tho exprest in a form of 
thought, is not identical with the form itself, but under¬ 
neath it. 

Now, underneath a form of thought, what is it that 
must be considered before we can know the whole truth 
that it expresses? When wise men hear a statement, 
what is the chief criterion by which they test its credi¬ 
bility? Is it not the circumstances in which it is ut¬ 
tered, or to which it applies? And what are circum¬ 
stances? Are they not things that stand around, that 
come before, beside, or after? To regard a thing in 
connection with its circumstances, what is this but to 
regard it as a thing acted on, and thus as a thing that 
is connected with other things that act—that is to say, 
as in itself a part of a process, as in itself a constituent 
element of an operation? 

But an operation in its progress may pass through 
many different phases. At any given time, each of 
these phases in succession may represent the method 


16 THE PSYC1I0L0GY OF 1NSPIRATION 

operating through them all. If when the sun is on the 
horizon, one affirm that in an hour it will be dark, he 
may be saying what is true or false, true if it be evening, 
false if it be morning. The truth or falseness which 
is not determined bv a similarity or difference in the 

%> %j 

statement—is it not determined by the degree in which 
the statement fits, or is true to methods as these really 
operate in nature? In nature it grows dark at eve, 
but not at dawn. Again, if one place a bud in the sun¬ 
light, it becomes a flower; but if one place a flower 
there, it withers. Therefore, in making a statement 
concerning the effect of sunshine on the appearance of a 
bush, he must regard the condition that it has reached 
in the process of its growth. Once more, there is one 
method of operation in religious life. But if a patriarch 
in the early ages became religious, his impulse to duty 
might have prompted him to multiply the number 
of his wives (Deut. 25; 5-9). A similar impulse in 
modern times may prompt a Christian to content him¬ 
self with one wife; and in making statements concern¬ 
ing the effects of religion on the lives of either of these 
men, one must regard the circumstances in which each 
is placed. These examples show that no one is fit to 
judge of the truth if devoid of sufficient insight—to say 
nothing of experience—to enable him to look beneath 
the formula. Precisely similar statements may be true 
or false even when applied to similar occurrences, if 
these be manifested in different circumstances of time 
or of place. 


/ 


THE NATURE OF TRUTH 


17 


Nevertheless most men believe that there is such a 
thing as absolute truth. But where is it, and when do 
statements give expression to it? In the realm of na¬ 
ture, the absolute seems to be suggested by a similar 
method indicated through all the different phases which 
different substances assume. The philosopher discovers 
what he conceives to be the absolute so far alone as he 
discovers this method into which all differences fit, or 
to which they can all be manifested to be true. Why 
should not the same principle apply universally? 

This question will be recognized by all as having a 
certain pertinence. But can the conception from 
which it springs stand the test of analysis? Appro¬ 
priate as this conception may be when the term truth 
is used in an abstract and general sense, is it equally 
so when used in a concrete and specific sense? The 
answer to this question necessitates our taking up the 
second topic mentioned at the opening of this chapter, 
namely, men’s conceptions of truth as indicated by 
their dealings with what they suppose to be its sub¬ 
stance— i.e., by what they think that they find when 
they obtain it. When a man says that he has the 
truth, or, to begin with the adjective, that a certain 
thing is true, what does he mean? Primarily, the ad¬ 
jective refers—does it not?—to that which conforms to 
something, or fits it. Nothing is true, except as it is 
true to some other appearance or conception with 
which it is compared. This meaning is evident, even 
when we use the term merely in contrast to the term 


18 THE PSYCITOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


false . When we say that a door is true, indicating 
that it is what it appears to be, that it is really a 
door, and not an imitation of one, we mean that it 
conforms, or is fitted, to that conception of a door 
which we have in mind. In this use of the word true, 
one might think that we were merely comparing ap¬ 
pearances with supposed appearances; but notice that 
we are also taking into consideration certain condi¬ 
tions underlying the appearances, which conditions 
cause the appearances, so to speak, to operate as they 
do upon the eye. The comparison is between the 
effect of a real door and the effect which some sup¬ 
posed door might have upon some supposed spectator. 
This, in some of its applications, is not an uncommon 
use of the adjective. For instance, the sentence, 
“John is his true name,’ 7 implies a comparison be¬ 
tween the effect of a certain form upon us in calling 
to our thoughts or lips the word John and the effect 
which some other form produces, or which John’s sup¬ 
posed form, if present, would produce upon a sup¬ 
posed acquaintance. 

But there are other possible ways of interpreting 
this phrase, the door is true. It may mean that the 
door corresponds in material, size, shape, color, or, 
perhaps, in only one of these regards, to some other 
doors which are near it. In these cases, too, it is evi¬ 
dent that the comparison is not between appearances 
except so far as they are considered effects produced 
by certain like methods of operation upon the eye. 


THE NATURE OF TRUTH 


19 


Or the phrase may mean that the door fits into its 
doorway, or conforms to the architectural design of 
the room or building in which it is seen; and, in this 
case, there may be involved no likeness whatever in 
the appearances as mere appearances. It is in the 
effects which certain principles controlling the con¬ 
struction of straight lines, angles, or curves have upon 
both the door and its framework, or upon the door 
and also upon the windows, cornices, and gables ac¬ 
companying it. The word true , therefore, does not 
imply necessarily a comparison between external forms 
or appearances. Nor, again, does it imply necessarily 
a comparison between the substances of which these 
forms are compounded, because the constituent ele¬ 
ments are often known to differ as widely as the con¬ 
stituted appearances. A painting, for instance, may 
be true to a hall in which it is hung. Every one of 
the cases mentioned, however, does imply a corre¬ 
spondence between conditions beneath the forms, 
which conditions produce effects. Whatever produces 
an effect, operates. If anything operate upon differ¬ 
ent material elements in such a manner as to indicate 
similarity, the similarity, which can not be in the mat¬ 
ter of the elements, must be in the manner—in other 
words, in the method of operation. 

This statement will be rendered more apparent when 
we apply the word true not to that which is made to 
conform or to be fitted to material conditions, but to 
mental conditions. A man's words or deeds, for ex- 



20 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


ample, are said to be true to his opinions or character. 
How can they be true to that which in itself is in¬ 
visible? The visible can not conform to the invisible 
in form or in substance. It must conform to it in the 
manner, or in the method of operation. One says, 
again, that the color upon a maiden’s cheek is true. 
By this he means that the flush or the pallor there is 
produced according to a method that conforms to that 
of nature—is not a result of mere painting or washing, 
but is a result of the movement of the unseen blood 
within the system; and, more than this often, that it 
is conformed to unseen mental excitement or depres¬ 
sion. This use of the term is revealed still more 
plainly when we come to consider the possibility of 
the existence in man of both a body and a soul. The 
body is material; the soul, so far, at least, as we can 
become acquainted with it, is immaterial. How now 
can the bodily expression be true to the soul’s ex¬ 
perience? In formal appearance, frowns, gestures, 
words, do not resemble anger, feeling, or thought. 
Evidently the expression is true in the degree only in 
which it represents, by way of analogy or correspond¬ 
ence, the method in which one thought or feeling 
succeeds another. 

It may be asked, perhaps, if single words do not 
often give expression to thoughts, and how it is that 
a single word can represent a method of operation y 
which term operation necessarity implies a process. 
The answer is that a single word does not express 



THE NA TUBE OF TR UTH 


21 


thought except so far as the word may be perceived 
to be related in some way to a series of words. One 
asks, “Do you love me?” The answer is “Yes,” per¬ 
haps; but this “yes” has no meaning, conveys no 
thought, except to one acquainted with the previous 
question. Then it is recognized to be a short way of 
indicating the process which would be fully exprest by 
saying, “I love you.” A child, confronted with a 
fearful sight, cries out, “Oh!” This “oh” conveys no 
unmistakable meaning except to one who has knowl¬ 
edge of its occasion. Then it is recognized to be an 
effect of the process of thought or feeling started by 
the fearful sight. The fact is that thoughts in the 
mind invariably flow consecutively, one combination 
of them following another. For this reason each com¬ 
bination, except when exprest in an abbreviated form, 
because this is supposed to be sufficient to suggest the 
longer form, is invariably represented in what is 
termed a sentence. A sentence always implies or ex¬ 
presses a subject, a predicate, and an object. This is 
true even where the predicate is a passive verb, be¬ 
cause, in this case, the subject and object are the 
same. A subject, a predicate, and an object indicate 
a beginning of a movement, a movement, and an end 
of it. A movement is an operation. Therefore every 
sentence expresses an operation. And not only so, 
but it expresses a method of operation. Sense is not 
indicated simply by an order of sequence in words. 
This order may differ in different languages, and even 


22 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


in the same language. “If so, I will go/’ means ex¬ 
actly the same as “I will go, if so.” Sense is indi¬ 
cated by the order of dependence in the words; that 
is, by the method in which one word is made to affect 
or to be affected by another. Accordingly, it may be 
said that every sentence manifests a method of opera¬ 
tion. Moreover, as this is manifested in language, 
and as language is always representative of something 
that is not language, the method of operation in the 
words must be representative of one that takes place 
in a sphere which is not that of words. If one say, “I 
went there,” he means that the method of operation 
in his words represents the method of operation in his 
deeds. 

If the order of dependence of the words upon one 
another— i.e., the method of operation indicated by 
them—do not agree with the method in some other de¬ 
partment which they are supposed to represent, we 
have what is false. It may be made false either by 
representing, as if it had existed, an operation that 
has never taken place; or by misrepresenting an 
operation that has taken place. In the latter case, 
this might be done by substituting some fictitious sub¬ 
ject, predicate, or object in place of one really por¬ 
traying the conditions, or by inverting the order in 
which one of these parts of the sentence should be 
made to depend upon other parts. This is so evident 
that it need not be illustrated. 

Accordingly, we see that our use of the words true 


THE NATURE OF TRUTH 


23 


and truth indicates conformity—based upon compari¬ 
son—not alone to forms or to formulae, but to methods 
of operation. If we say that a man is true to himself, 
we seldom mean merely that his deeds or words com¬ 
pare with other of his deeds or words. We usually 
mean that the methods of operation in them compare 
with methods of operation in others of them, or we 
may mean not that they compare with words or deeds 
at all, but that they compare with certain varieties 
of mental operations which both represent, and which 
take place in the dissimilar and non-apparent realm 
of consciousness. If we say that a friend is true 
to another, we seldom mean that this friend’s face, 
deeds, words, thoughts, feelings, or even wishes are 
similar to the other man’s. We may mean merely 
that the friend, with his own face, etc., has a way of 
acting in such a manner as to carry out the other 
man’s purposes. It is a law of life that one’s actions 
are so ordered as to secure his own welfare. If his 
friend’s actions be made to accomplish the same re¬ 
sult, then this friend is true to him. When a man is 
true to God, he is true to the character of God, as this 
has been revealed to him through methods of opera¬ 
tion in nature and in revelation. This thought will be 
brought out more distinctly hereafter. At present we 
need dw T ell no longer on what is indicated by the ad¬ 
jective true . We have traced it from its lowest to its 
highest signification. When attributed to any form, 
material or imagined, of structure, deed, or word, the 


24 THE PS YCIIOL 0 GY OF INSPIRA PI ON 


adjective indicates that the form is conformed to an¬ 
other form, with which, in whole or in part, in general 
effect or in underlying conditions, it is compared. 
The fact of conformity is made evident sometimes be¬ 
cause the forms appear alike, by which we mean that 
they operate similarly on the eye, ear, or some other 
sense, or, at times, on the imagination regarding them. 
The same fact is made evident at other times because, 
while they do not appear alike, nevertheless they 
manifest certain results of like methods which, in con¬ 
nection wdth different existences, or, possibly, in dif¬ 
ferent spheres of existence—one material and one 
mental—have been operating to produce the appear¬ 
ances. 

Truth is the substance of that of which true is the 
quality. As what is termed an expression , whether 
made in a form of words or of deeds, of literary art or 
of plastic art, can not invariably conform in form or 
appearance to what is audible, visible, or tangible in 
the external world, the truth in such an expression can 
not be said to be determined invariably by anything 
except the conformity of the method of the expres¬ 
sion's operation upon the mind (whether influencing 
intelligence or emotion) to the method of operation 
(upon either the senses or the mind) indicated in ex¬ 
isting external appearances or processes to which the 
expression refers. In a similar way, the truth , when the 
term is applied generically, is determined by the con¬ 
formity of the method of the expression's operation 



THE NATURE OF TRUTH 


25 


upon the mind to some one method of operation in 
the universe, to which method all methods under par¬ 
ticular appearances or processes are supposed to be 
organically related. It is in this latter sense that the 
truth can be said to be infinite, eternal, and absolute. 


CHAPTER II 


THE NATURE OF TRUTH AS INDICATED BY WHAT MEN 
DO WHEN RECEIVING AND IMPARTING ITS INFLUENCE 

Objections to the View Presented in the First Chapter—Truth, as 
Exprest in Language, Should Not Be Confounded with the 
Formula; Illustrated from Methods of Interpreting the Bible— 
Its History Noteworthy for the Methods of Life Which It Illus¬ 
trates—Its Prophecies Valuable for Their Fulfilment Not Only, 
but Applicability to Laws Operating Everywhere—Confirmation 
of This Principle of Interpretation of the Bible in Its Explanations 
—Its Arguments—Its Injunctions—Real Meaning Lost When 
Truth Is Supposed to Be Conformed to Formulae Alone, and Not 
Also to Methods of Operation—The Use of the Word Truth in the 
Bible—Illustrations—Inferences—Truth Is Perceived in the Proc¬ 
ess of Searching for It—Supposing Change Inconsistent with 
Absoluteness in Truth Is a Source of Both Infidelity and Bigotry— 
Right Views of Truth as a Corrective of These—The Truth in 
Revealed and Natural Religion Connected with a Conception of 
Method—One Recognizing This May Be a Friend to Both Progress 
and Permanence—Inferences from the View Here Presented—A 
Few Forms in Space May Reveal Universal Methods—One Mind 
May Represent God—And One Life, if Full of Love—The Mission 
of the Friend—Comfort in This Suggestion—The Changes of a Few 
Moments May Reveal Universal Methods—Child or Man with 
Short or Long Life May Both Have Experience of Them. 


Before concluding the subject begun on page 10 it is 
necessary to notice men’s conceptions of the truth as in¬ 
dicated by their dealings with its results— i.e. } by what 
they do when receiving or imparting its influence. 
Some may not perceive how, if the truth be not identical 
with a form of statement in a creed or a dogma, it can 
affect thought or action in the degree in which it should. 


SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT 


27 


They may find fault with a theory which seems to in¬ 
volve a weakening not only of speculative doctrine, 
but of practical faith, because lessening confidence in 
those statements on which spiritual life must depend 
for guidance. An endeavor will be made now to show 
that this theory does not have the effect thus attributed 
to it, but rather the opposite. 

It seems to be a legitimate inference, from what has 
been said already, that, to be rightly influenced by a 
statement, we need to be influenced by something more 
than the statement itself. But the same inference may 
be drawn as a result of other considerations. For in¬ 
stance, if truth were identical with a formula presenting 
it, why would not one’s wisdom be proportioned to his 
memory? But of course it is not. Again, why is 
candor necessary in order to attain success in an intel¬ 
lectual investigation or charity in a religious one? How 
can w T ise philosophers or earnest theologians, convinced 
to the contrary, too, yield a conscientious toleration to 
the views of their opponents? With what reason can 
they, in their words as well as in their deeds, virtually 
act upon the hypothesis that truth may be exprest 
in statements diametrically opposed to those that they 
themselves make? How could one affirm of two such 
statements, “Both may be true,” unless intending to 
admit, and conscious that the one to whom the asser¬ 
tion is adclrest will just as readily admit, that by the 
truth something is meant which is communicated 
through the statement, but is not by any means iden- 


28 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 

tical with it. Or, to apply the same thought where, in 
this connection, it will have the most significance— i.e., 
to the statements of creeds or dogmas of which mention 
has just been made—what church is there that fails to 
recognize the necessity, where one is to be influenced, 
as he should be, by such statements, of that spiritual 
discernment of which the Apostle Paul speaks when, in 
1 Cor. 2; 14, he says that “the natural man receiveth 
not the things of the Spirit of God, . . . because they 
are spiritually discerned”? What is spiritual discern¬ 
ment? Let us consider it for a little, and, that there 
may be no doubt as to its meaning, let us examine it 
where there is the least possible opportunity of admit¬ 
ting a difference between the phraseology and the mean¬ 
ing which the phraseology is intended to convey; let us 
apply it, that is, to the words of the Bible. 

The greater portion, perhaps, of this book is com¬ 
posed of history and prophecy. Who imagines that 
the history in it is valuable chiefly on account of the 
events related considered merely as events? Is it not 
rather on account of the events considered as illustra¬ 
tive of principles, illustrative— i.e., of the methods of the 
divine government, of the modes according to which 
spiritual laws operate ? Do commentators or do preach¬ 
ers represent that the mere memory of the transactions 
recorded in the book is more important than the morals 
to be drawn from the transactions which, in the order 
of their occurrence, indicate the methods of the usual 
development of religious life? Are not the individuals 



SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT 


29 


and the nations mentioned in the book understood to 
be typical of other individuals and nations? Are not 
their experiences recognized to be intended to reveal 
primarily the methods in which doubt or faith and sin 
or righteousness in every age and country are either 
punished or rewarded? Is it not the revelation of these 
methods that renders possible a sermon based upon a 
story in the Bible? Is it not the possibility of our con¬ 
forming our own lives to these methods that renders it 
possible for us to be benefited by the truth derivable 
from the story? Certainly the last four questions can 
be answered in the affirmative. If not, the “higher 
criticism” of the last two decades would not have been 
able to persuade so many to acknowledge that the un¬ 
scientific writers of the Bible could draw their lessons 
from what are, possibly, mere traditions and legends, 
and yet not impair one’s faith in the spiritual truth 
contained in them. Why should not truth be revealed 
through them as well as through the purely imagined 
figures used by David in his psalms, or the imagined 
parables used by Jesus in his discourses? 

The same principle applies to the prophecy of the 
Bible. Of what special value to our time is it to be 
told that Tyre or Sidon shall he destroyed on account 
of wickedness? While comparing dates we learn, of 
course, that these denunciations of the cities came be¬ 
fore the destructions of them; and our faith in prophecy 
may be strengthened by noticing the fact. Yet the 
sole value of passages of this kind does not rest in such 


30 THE PSYCHOP0GY OF INSPIRATIOPT 


an application of them; nor their chief value. Why do 
men to-day read and reread these same passages? Why 
does the clergyman preach about them? Is it not be¬ 
cause it is felt that they have a significance for all time 
as well as for the times in which they were uttered? 
Do not methods of operation evidenced in prophecy 
as well as in history repeat themselves? Altho certain 
words used may have been uttered in denunciation of 
particular cities, and fulfilled with literal exactness as 
applied to them, may not the methods exprest in the 
words be applied to every town or country in which 
existing evils may provoke similar violence? The 
world first learned of the philosophy of history from 
Herder. The Church, if it had had but very little 
of its treasured “spiritual discernment,” might have 
learned of the same from Moses, and thus proved the 
prestige which the children of eternity ought to have 
over those of time. 

Now let us turn from history and prophecy to those 
parts of the Bible in which the Scriptural reasons for 
the uses of both have been distinctly stated. How 
many times, and in how clear language, are we informed 
that certain persons and events are to be interpreted 
representatively! How many times that Abraham, 
Moses, Joshua, David, Jonah, are typical of the Christ! 
How many times that the flood, the exodus, the wander¬ 
ing in the wilderness, the lifting up of the serpent, are 
emblematical of a universal method operating every¬ 
where, and through which man can be delivered from 


BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS 


31 


sin! How many times is the word Israel or Babylon 
employed, not with literal exactness, but to indicate, 
by way of metonymy, a class of people inclined to 
righteousness or to unrighteousness! 

Those parts of the Bible which are not devoted to 
history or prophecy or explanations of their methods 
of imparting truth may be classified under the head 
either of arguments or of injunctions. Let us notice 
what we can learn from these. Through arguments, 
truth is demonstrated. Through injunctions, it is 
merely stated. How is truth demonstrated in the 
Bible? The Apostle Paul, whether writing to the 
Romans or to the Hebrews, argues thus: “Abraham 
believed God, and it was counted unto him for right¬ 
eousness” (Rom. 4; 3). Through faith, Abel, Enoch, 
Noah, Abraham, and countless others “obtained a good 
report” (Heb. 11; 39). Therefore, if the Christian be¬ 
lieve, his faith also shall be so counted, and he also shall 
obtain a good report. And again, all that priests and 
sacrifices of the former Testament accomplished, the 
Christ of whom they were symbolical has accomplished 
(Heb. 10; 12). Therefore the Christian, different as are 
the forms of his religion, is saved according to the same 
method. But evidently arguments of this kind have 
no force whatever, except so far as it is recognized that 
the truth of religion consists less in conformity to the 
apparent form than to the method of operation which 
this form exemplifies. Or let us recall the words of 
the Christ. We are told that he never spake without 


32 THE PSYCHO LOGY OF INSPIR A TION 


a parable (Mark 4; 34). How do parables present the 
truth? By means of a parallel instance. They illus¬ 
trate a principle applicable to one phase of life, through 
pointing to the way in which it operates in another 
real or fancied phase. They indicate the working of a 
law in one department or development of nature, 
through instancing its operation in a corresponding 
department or development. And they have no force 
whatever; they suggest no arguments at all, except so 
far as mankind recognizes that there is a sense in which 
to find the one method operating in all different de¬ 
partments and developments of nature is to find the 
truth. The words which caused the common people 
to affirm that the Master spake “as one having author¬ 
ity’ ’ (Matt. 7; 29) were almost invariably these state¬ 
ments of parallels. “Behold the fowls of the air,” he 
said; “ . . . your Heavenly Father feedeth them. Are 
ye not much better than they?” (Matt. 6; 26). “If 
ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your 
children, how much more shall your Father which is in 
heaven give good things to them that ask him?” 
(Matt. 7; 11). “Ye shall know them by their fruits. 
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” 
(Matt. 7; 16). Such were the statements of the Christ; 
and not alone in his case, but from the time when he 
stood upon the shores of Galilee, without one priest to 
place a hand upon his head and ordain him as a messen¬ 
ger of God, down to the present, in the cases of all men 
whom the people hear with gladness, as they throng the 


BIBLICAL INJUNCTIONS 


33 


halls of all the sects, statements in the form of parables 
or parallels have had an influence beyond all others in 
proving to men the presence of a mind that has pene¬ 
trated to the sources of truth, and can reveal it. Why? 
Because the masses have recognized the connection 
between the truth and a method of operation applicable 
universally. 

From the arguments of the Bible let us turn now to 
its injunctions. How are these presented? If its ar¬ 
guments affirm conformity to like methods operating 
beneath different effects which are mentioned, its in¬ 
junctions imply this conformity. They refer to one 
series of effects that necessarily suggests another. In¬ 
deed, one could almost assert that that which mainly 
causes the Scriptural precepts to be accepted by so 
many with the authority of absolute truth is this fact. 
They are precepts which it can be said that men of 
every age and place, the Hindu and the Hottentot, 
the Englishman and the Egyptian, can recognize to be 
truthful. The more they search the book, too, the 
more they And in it passages that can apply to al¬ 
most every series of their own experience and of their 
neighbors’, and equally well to almost every series of 
events in the history of the human race and of the 
material world. Upon whatever ground a man may 
base his confidence in the Bible, the testimony of every 
thoughtful mind, the implication of every Scriptural 
discourse, the confession of every new convert, proves 
that a main source of Scriptural authority lies in the 


34 THE PS YCHOL 0 GY OF INS PIE A TI ON 


fact which Coleridge stated when he said, “It finds 
me.” Here is a book which satisfies the wants of 
human souls, just as the earth about one satisfies the 
wants of human bodies. The force of the argument of 
Coleridge is derived from the inference that the Power 
which made man must have made the world, and that 
inasmuch as the precepts of the Bible accord with the 
laws which operate in the world they must accord with 
the purposes of this Power. It would be difficult to 
recall a single Biblical statement of a spiritual truth 
which can not be illustrated by showing the applica¬ 
tion of the methods which it indicates to the methods 
operating in the realms of intellect and of physics. 
For instance, take a passage like the following: 
“Quench not the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5; 19). The an¬ 
alogy is obvious. Pour not water on fire. Extinguish 
not the life of one element by adding another hostile 
to it. Do not drive away spirituality by bringing in 
worldliness. 

There are other cases in which the method indicated 
is less easy to recognize. In these we need to remem¬ 
ber this—that truths are simply finite, transient, and 
concrete embodiments of the truth which is infinite, 
eternal, and absolute; and that in order to perceive 
the latter in a given formula, we must distinguish it 
from what is merely finite, transient, and concrete. 
For example, take a statement like the following: 
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be 
saved” (Acts 1G; 31). The truth that is to influence 


TRUTH IN THE METHOD 


35 


us in this is either in the concrete transient formula, 
or in the absolute, eternal method of operation indi¬ 
cated by the formula. But if it be in the formula, we 
can not reconcile the statement with such statements 
as the following, which also are in the Bible: “Abra¬ 
ham believed God”—without the words Jesus Christ 
added—“and it was counted unto him for righteous¬ 
ness” (Rom. 4; 3); “In every nation he that feareth 
him, and worketh righteousness”—without mention of 
believing—“is accepted” (Acts 10; 35); “These, hav¬ 
ing not the law”—without any reference even to a 
knowledge of Jesus Christ—“are a law unto them¬ 
selves” (Rom. 2; 14). Accordingly we must conclude 
that the absolute, eternal truth in the phrase, “Be¬ 
lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be 
saved,” is less in the formula than in the method in¬ 
dicated by it. This method grows clear to a finite 
mind in the proportion in which it is translated into 
finite terms, or, better, is made definite. These two 
words, Jesus Christ , are intended to remind one of 
what that person said and did when representing, so 
far as this was possible in a human form, the char¬ 
acter of the deity. To one who recalls the method of 
the representation, the words make the injunction well- 
nigh infinitely clearer to comprehension. He should 
guard against thinking, however, that they are more 
important than the method which they are intended 
to illustrate. The words are definitive and not in¬ 
finitive. The absolute and eternal truth which they 



36 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


are used in order to make clear is the need of having 
faith in spiritual supervision, love, or aid. In every 
phase of natural life, all persons who are compara¬ 
tively ignorant, weak, and sinful need to trust for 
guidance in the wise, the strong, and the loving, and, 
for the highest guidance, in the highest wisdom, 
strength, and love, hence in the deity. To define this 
method of salvation b} r annexing the words Jesus 
Christ to the statement, and causing us to think of 
what he said and did, may communicate good tidings 
to the souls who otherwise might have too vague no¬ 
tions of the unseen deity; but it does not, save in a 
negative sense, communicate bad tidings to the souls 
who can not, or who do not, know of the definition 
which makes the infinite truth more finite. Con¬ 
sidered in relation to the context and with an accu¬ 
rate conception of the meaning of the words believe , 
saved, and Jesus Christ, the passage quoted expresses 
a truth fundamental to all religious character and 
charity. But divorced from its connection, no one 
can know that believe means more than intellectual 
assent, or saved more than mere comfort in this world, 
or Jesus Christ more than the being who is sending 
people to perdition in Michelangelo’s picture of the 
“Last Judgment.” 

Once more, not only in the history, prophecy, argu¬ 
ments, and injunctions of the Bible do we find that 
the truth which men are to accept and obey involves 
conformity to a method of operation, but also, and in 


TRUTH AS LIFE 


37 


the clearest light, in passages in which the sacred 
writers have employed the word truth. The Bible 
does indeed apply the term to language. “I tell you 
the truth,” said Jesus (John 1G; 7). But what was 
this truth? If it were something that he could illus¬ 
trate by one of the parables which he was constantly 
using, then it was a method. Moreover, he said not 
only, “I tell you the truth,” but also (John 14; 6) “I 
am the truth”; and one can not account for such a 
use of terms unless conceiving of the truth as some¬ 
thing different from words, tho, of course, it may also 
include them. 

What did the Christ mean by the expression? What 
could he have meant except that he conceived of him¬ 
self as the truth just as all nature is the truth—con¬ 
ceived of himself as a representative of the character of 
the Creative Power? But how is character represent¬ 
ed? Always through methods of operation. “What is 
truth?” asked Pilate of Jesus (John 18; 38); and was 
answered—in not the words but the deeds of the Master 
—that one acts according to the methods of truth when 
long-suffering and self-sacrificing. “I am the way,” 
said Jesus, “the truth, and the life” (John 14; 6). What 
is a way but a method? What is a life but a progress 
according to a method? The Apostle, looking down 
that way, enjoined upon his followers to “walk in love, 
even as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given him¬ 
self for us an offering and a sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5; 
2). “For I rejoiced greatly,” said John, “when the 




38 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATTON 

brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, 
even as thou walkest in the truth” (3 John 3); and 
again, “Let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but 
in deed and in truth” (1 John 3; 18). To walk “in the 
truth” and to love “in the truth” must mean to pur¬ 
sue a certain method. Again, when the Christ says, 
“Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” 
(John 18; 37), he must refer to every one whose feel¬ 
ings, thoughts, and deeds accord with his own—to 
every one in active sympathy with his methods of life. 

All such passages—and they might be multiplied 
greatty—show that, so far as the nature of abstract or 
religious truth can be judged by what the writers of 
Scripture believed to be its results, it is not identical 
with a formula; nor can it be communicated orpossest 
by one who apprehends it merely as this. A formula 
can be accepted by the intellect alone. It can be 
mastered, once for all, by a single act of memory; and 
can exert its full influence when obeyed solely accord¬ 
ing to the letter. Only as we may suppose that the 
truth is not in the letter but in the method, the prin¬ 
ciple, the spirit exprest through the letter, can we in¬ 
terpret intelligently such Scriptural passages as have 
been quoted. Only as we may suppose this can we 
understand why such effects should result as these 
passages claim. No truth except that which is sup¬ 
posed to be in methods rather than in statements can 
characteristically oblige a man to think in order to per¬ 
ceive it, and to work in order to accept it. Why but to 


STRIVING FOR TRUTH 


39 


emphasize these latter effects of the truth and the 
importance of them are we told that the publican, 
who smites upon his breast and sighs out, “God be 
merciful to me a sinner,” tho he may not have fulfilled 
many a requirement of a formal law, should be com¬ 
mended rather than the Pharisee, tho he may have left 
not one jot or tittle of this law unfulfilled? The pub¬ 
lican yearns for higher conceptions and attainments. 
He lives according to true methods, and so has the 
truth. The Pharisee is content with what he possesses 
already. He does not live according to true methods. 
He does not have the truth (Luke 18; 10-14). 

Let, then, the souls so often blamed because they 
look away from what they have, and search on every 
side of them for more, toil on! Their toil, tho it 
may gain them little to be touched or seen, may yet 
develop life in them. Each sigh may force still farther 
from their breasts the poisonous breath of error, each 
aspiration draw still nearer them the inspiring air of 
heaven. There is so much more truth on the earth 
than mortals can imagine possible! When Lessing 
said, “Did the Almighty, holding truth in his right 
hand and search for truth in his left hand, tender me 
the one that I should prefer, I should ask for the search 
for truth”; when Malebranche affirmed, “If I held 
truth a captive in my hand, I would let it fly that I 
might once more chase it, and capture it,” they spoke 
far more the "wisdom of the heart than of the head. 
The truth held in one's hand? The absolute, eternal 


40 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


truth? Can it be handled—all of it? Is not often the 
effort of obtaining it, the method of discovering it, its 
most important factor? If this be so, it is through the 
desire for this truth, and not in any sating of the desire, 
that it can be possest. This is the reason why— 

“There lives more faith iu honest doubt, 

Believe me, than in half the creeds.” 

In Mcmoriam: Tennyson. 

To the spirit, progress is more acceptable than a pre¬ 
cept, life than a tale that is told. Through struggle 
men experience development, and doubt that leads to 
struggle is a means of grace. The moment of the 
Christ’s intensest doubt came just before the greatest 
victory of his faith. The cry, “My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27; 46) was the minor 
prelude preceding the triumphant cadence, “It is 
finished” (John 19; 30). 

Even the very infallible unchangeableness of which 
dogmatism sometimes boasts may be in itself a ground 
for grave suspicion. Is it the sign of a living thing to 
stand unmoved for centuries amid the shifting seasons 
of the world’s advance?—to fix the gaze of greatest ad¬ 
miration on the past?—to find the holiest ideal there, 
and to long for the superior sanctity of that which has 
been buried? Did ever painter yet depict one faintest 
realization of a living faith in which the face was not 
turned toward the future? What is the influence that 
sways the individual or the community whose aim is 
sought amid the smoke of centuries consumed? Re- 


TRUTH AND PROGRESS 


41 


member Lot’s wife! There is a civilization beautiful 
to look upon which may be a monument of what? 
Of death—possibly of damnation. It is a question 
whether, without being crusht and killed, a living 
thing—and truth, according to the Scriptural represen¬ 
tation, is surely this—can ever be confined for long in a 
single unchanged mould; whether a root having any 
life at all will not necessarily have enough of force to 
bend and crack and cast aside whatever urn of worldly 
manufacture may surround it. Has not every age had 
experience enough to be taught that previous ages held 
too firmly to the form, that changes in the form do not 
affect the substance of the truth? Why then should 
each new phase of truth be met with the same old folly 
of opposing it? Why should a theoretical misconcep¬ 
tion, as foolish as the child’s that takes the mask for 
the man, cause all those mournful, yet quixotic, cru¬ 
sades that tend to persecution, if they do not end in 
martyrdom? In the world of nature, once at least in 
every year, the white snows melt upon the mountains; 
and the gleaming ice upon the streams is heaved up, 
rent apart, and swept away. Why, now and then, 
should not like changes be expected in the world of 
thought? Why should not men anticipate a breaking 
up and disappearing of formal aspects, however bright 
and beautiful, however appropriate and satisfactory 
they may have seemed in their own now long past 
season? But what men might expect and should ex¬ 
pect, they will not; and when these changes come— 


42 THE PS YCHOL 0 GY OF IN SPUR A TION 


alas for such as base their confidence on forms alone! 
Like those that pitch their tents upon the shifting 
sands of a flooding stream, they find all things about 
them trembling, crackling, sinking; and in the sudden 
frenzy of bewilderment it often happens that the very 
voice most boastful of unwarranted credulity becomes 
most blatant of an equally unwarranted despair. 
“ Truth is a form,” says one. “Forms change. This 
fact is patent. Therefore truth must change. There 
can be no enduring ground of certainty; by conse¬ 
quence, no faith. At best, the truth consists alone in 
sincerity to personal conviction”—and, arguing thus, 
he ends by having no conviction. “Truth,” says an¬ 
other, “is immutable and eternal; it can not change, 
and, therefore, forms should not. No change can be 
compatible with faith whose essence is submission to 
external standards. Accordingly the Church must hold 
to these implicitly, and, if it have occasion, must en¬ 
force them by the exercise of its authority”—and, 
arguing thus, he ends by exercising, as if in its behalf, 
his own authority alone. The first man goes astray 
because he has perceived an operation changing the for¬ 
mula, but, while perceiving this, has failed to recognize 
that in the method of the operation lies the truth; the 
second goes astray because he has observed a method, 
but has looked upon a single aspect of it as a mould to 
which all future aspects are to be conformed. He does 
not view it as only the outward and the transient phase 
of that which in its inward self alone is enduring. 


TRUTH AND SINCERITY 


43 


But he who apprehends that truth involves con¬ 
formity to a method of operation, and that the truth 
involves conformity to one eternal, absolute method, 
need not fall the prey of either of these errors. Merely 
because he perceives nothing but the changeable in 
formulae, he need not imagine that there is no perma¬ 
nent truth at all exprest in them, nor that, by conse¬ 
quence, the truth which all men and the Bible exalt, 
and for which he himself is striving, consists in mere 
sincerity. Sincerity is truth to self—a true expression 
in outward speech and manner of the processes of 
thought, feeling, and volition experienced within. 
But a life in accordance with the truth, altho implying 
this, may include much more. It may include an ex¬ 
pression, not alone in outward bearing, but in inward 
life as well—in processes of thought, feeling, or volition, 
whatever they may be—that accords with that which 
is understood by the term the absolute. So far alone 
as the laws of the absolute are “ written upon one’s 
heart” is sincerity to self sufficient. But otherwise, if 
one’s inward life do not accord with methods of the uni¬ 
verse, he may be true to himself and yet not be true to the 
methods operating through all time and in every place. 

As shown on page 31, the Apostle to the Gentiles, in 
order to prove faith the attitude of soul acceptable to 
God, felt constrained to prove that this was that 
through which in every period of their history the 
Israelites had been saved* And is there any one who 

* Rom. 1; 17, quoting Hab. 2; 4. Rom. 4; 3, quoting Gen. 15; 6. 


44 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 


fails to recognize the force of an argument which shows 
the methods of one system of religious life to be not 
different but similar to methods which have been recog¬ 
nized in part in every other system? However this 
may be, the truth of the Biblical religion—what is it 
except conformity to the methods of life equally ap¬ 
parent in the individual experience of religious men 
both before and after the coming of the Christ? The 
truth of natural religion—what is it but conformity to 
the methods equally apparent in the development of 
the soul and of the forms of physical life by which it is 
surrounded? 

He who recognizes these conceptions can be a friend 
both to progress and to permanence. He can argue, 
on the one hand, that the forms of truth may change, 
and he can maintain, upon the other, that the methods 
working underneath these forms must remain the same. 
He can perceive the shifting of the scenery upon the 
stage of life without supposing that the stage itself is 
shifting. He can note the curtain falling without 
imagining that it is falling upon everything that he 
should treasure. He can cease to hear the murmurs 
of applause, and can watch the retiring of the audience, 
without surmising that all the joys in store for him are 
left behind. He knows that, tho he may no longer see 
the forms or listen to the words that represented to him 
once all that appeared to be the truth, this does not in¬ 
dicate that the truth itself does not exist. He knows 
that while forms do not and can not last forever, the 


TRUTH AND CHANGE 


45 


methods of operation whose phases they represent may 
and must endure; and that in them can endure that 
absolute verity to which all men, in exercising faith, 
acknowledge their allegiance. 

To certain readers conceptions such as these may 
appear too vague and insecure. Their minds are finite, 
and they crave the definite; and not a few of them may 
wish to walk by knowledge, not by faith. Yet others 
are not so. To them the suggestions here presented 
will be welcome not alone, but stimulating. For so 
far as the absolute truth is conceived to be conformity 
to a single method operating everywhere, so far it will 
appear not speculative but logical to infer that for a 
man to know with thoroughness a single mind and a 
single world may be the same, in kind tho not in degree, 
as to know the mind of God and of all the universe; and 
this not in a pantheistic or materialistic sense, but in a 
spiritual sense, inasmuch as God reveals his character in 
each as well as in all; inasmuch as his laws are the laws 
of one whose wisdom is so absolute that his wise meth¬ 
ods need no alteration. 

To know one mind may be the same in kind as to 
know God! Is not this a conception almost radiant 
with suggestions? Was it not thus that Jesus, the man, 
could be for us the image of the invisible God, the ex¬ 
pression of his character, and hence the truth? But 
the Christ w^as said to be an elder brother—the first¬ 
born among many brethren (Rom. 8; 29). Had he— 
has he—brethren? Then others besides the Christ can 




46 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


represent the Godhead. If so, when can they do this? 
It must be when they live according to the truth, and 
when also they feel impelled to express to us with truth 
the thoughts and feelings actuating them. But in what 
circumstances do they feel impelled to this? Is any 
mortal really frank except among his friends? Is he 
truthful save so far as he is loving? Perfect love alone 
casts out the fear that causes diffidence. It alone 
prompts one to surrender wilfulness to spontaneity. 
It alone enables him to dare to open all his heart to one 
who listens at his side. But ordinary men can live the 
truth only at intervals, or express it to only a single 
soul. The Christ is claimed to be the truth at all times 
and to every one. If this claim be justified, he must 
have loved all. In the words, “I am the truth,” he gave 
the profoundest expression of this love. He could not 
have been the one save as he had the other. So to 
thoughtful minds the simplest fact of his history is 
equally significant with the Crucifixion to which the 
Church has chiefly called attention; only men are gross, 
and need the physical, material expression. 

Yet again, it has been shown that truth is possest in 
the degree alone in which it is lived, experienced. The 
love, accordingly, which causes others to be frank is 
efficient in imparting truth to us in the degree alone in 
which it affects ourselves. Thus do the laws of the 
mind necessitate the methods of Christianity. Christ 
was the truth, but only those who are “of the truth 
hear” his “voice” (John 18; 37). Only those who do 


TRUTH AND LOVE 


47 


the Father’s will can “know of the doctrine” (John 
7; 17). Our friend may open to our view the workings 
of his heart; but it is friendship, love, awakened in our¬ 
selves in view of that which he reveals, which measures 
our appreciation and appropriation of his experience. 
Not so much, then, the one that merely is loved knows 
of the godlike in a man, and hence of God; but “every 
one that loveth . . . knoweth God” (1 John 4; 7). 

And who can say that he has never had a friendship, 
a merely human friendship too, in which there were 
experiences akin to this; from which there were emitted 
sanctifying influences like those which might accom¬ 
pany the revelations of a God? Those happy faces 
that still flit before us whenever we recall the fresher 
days of youth; those friends who met us in the years 
when our whole souls were yearning for the knowledge 
of the godlike; those who held to our ideals so bright a 
love that we could never keep our thoughts from it; 
those in the sunshine of whose smiles truth, that no 
longer felt the wintry influence of frigid frowns, broke 
into buds upon our lips and flowered all round them in 
our blushes—were they not the dearest messengers 
to teach our souls of God? “Every one that loveth 
. . . knoweth God.” And was not this—the knowl¬ 
edge of God’s self—the fond possession that made our 
blood so thrill in all our pulses, that made our souls so 
tremble as if in ecstasy to shake off the robes of matter, 
nay, that made this old earth here itself a heaven? If 
we knew God, indeed, what further blessing could ex- 


48 THE PSYCHOL 0 G Y OF INSP1RA TION 

istence furnish us? And would not all the blessedness 
of such a state be owing to a mood which friendship 
had developed in us? “Every one that loveth . . . 
knoweth God.” 

There certainly is comfort to an earnest mind in con¬ 
ceiving that the truth, with all its infinite essence, may 
be learned through knowledge of some single phase 
of it; that a single world may teach us of the universe, 
a single man, of God; that we may find, tho not in an 
exclusive sense, our heaven in our household, and our 
God himself in every friend—in the least of all his 
children who is hungry and is fed by us, and is thirsty 
and is given drink by us (Matt. 25; 35-40). 

The range of truth, however, by considerations such 
as these, is simplified, not only in the realms of space, 
but also in the realms of time. The experiences of life 
are granted us that we may learn the truth through 
them. How long must life be ere we shall have learned 
it thoroughly? The insect that can flutter through 
its brief existence in a day can experience birth and 
growth and death as truly as the mastodon. A few 
words or a few deeds may reveal to us the character of 
a friend. Through them we may learn his methods 
of believing, feeling, doing; through them we may learn 
the truth concerning him. A few words from the 
book of revelation, a few evolutions in the works of 
nature—why may they not reveal to us, with equal 
certainty, the character of him who is the eternal, the 
infinite, and the absolute? 


TRUTH AND LIFE 


49 


When the Christ declared that every one who was 
of the truth would hear his voice, whom did he mean 
to mention? Only souls that could speak wisely of a 
long experience? Only the men whose feeble feet had 
traveled through the whole hard path of life, whose 
limbs were tottering on the borders of a grave from 
which, perhaps, they shrank in fear of an offended 
Deity? Did he not mean the little children also, who, 
perhaps, could not articulate a sound, whose limbs 
were tottering too, but not from heaviness, and who 
shrank too, but not from that sweet face which had 
gazed upon them through harsh crowds that would 
have kept them back from him? The eternal, the in¬ 
finite, and the absolute truth—think not that a mor¬ 
tal’s share of it can be measured in the scales of time 
or of space. “One day is with the Lord as a thousand 
years” (2 Pet. 3; 8). The soul of a little child that dies 
is riper than we think, perhaps. Some of the smallest 
in the graveyards may have lived the truth in a deeper 
sense than those whom men call great. Are any of us 
certain that it would have been worse for us had we died 
early? Is there not much promise in a promise of per¬ 
petual youth? Are not the cherub faces crowded on 
the canvas of the artist a vague prophecy of some 
superior joyousness and beauty in the children who go 
forth to live as children evermore within the realms 
of spirit? How is it with mortals when they linger 
longer here? Let withering lips and deathlike coun¬ 
tenances tell. We have our good things—Heaven 



50 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATTON 


forgive us that we call them good!—on earth. And 
is this wretched and distorted lie into which the earth 
has shaped so many of us, to speak and do and be our¬ 
selves forever? And if we be not satisfied with what 
this world can make of us, if we rebel against it, what 
comes then? To the Christ, who spake, and did, and 
was the truth, the world cried, “Crucify him! crucify 
him!” It is so with many still. For them to speak 
the truth is death to influence, to do the truth is death 
to position, and to be the truth—this is to complete 
the aim of life. It is to be sacrificed, to die, and to live 
in spirit only. Yet this fate may not be without its 
compensations. In the last address of the Christ to his 
disciples—the same in which he prophesied his coming 
Crucifixion—he also said, “These things have I spoken 
unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that 
your joy might be full” (John 15; 11). 


CHAPTER III 


THE MIND’S SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SPIRITUAL OR INSPIRA¬ 
TIONAL, AS CONTRASTED WITH MATERIAL, INFLUENCES 

To What Men Refer When Using the Term Inspiration—When Using 
the Term Spiritual—Considered an Influence Not Traceable to the 
Conscious Sphere of the Mind—But Traceable to or Through an 
Inner or Subconscious Sphere—Proofs of the Existence of This 
Sphere, as in Memory, Fright, Fever, Hypnotism—Subconscious 
Philosophical and Mathematical Intellection—Resulting from 
Previous Conscious Action, as in Skill—Not Resulting from 
Previous Conscious Action : Coburn, Mozart, Blind Tom—Sub¬ 
conscious Diagnosis of Disease at a Distance — Subconscious 
Apprehension of Distant Occurrences—Both in Space and Time— 
Mind-Reading — Automatic Writing—Apparitions — Connection 
Between Such Facts and Belief in a Future State of Rewards and 
Punishments — Often Attributed to Natural Material Causes — 
Should Be Attributed to Influences from Nature’s Occult Side 
—Shown in Susceptibility of the Primitive, Uneducated Man to 
Such Influences—Instinct and Reason—Instinctive and Rational— 
Instinctive and Religious—Instinctive and Animal—Story of the 
Fall—The Mental Actions of Animals—Of Negroes, Indians, and 
Those Subject to Hallucinations, with Inferences Therefrom— 
Like Inferences with Reference to the Origin of Religion Drawn 
from Primitive Religious Customs—With Growth of Intelligence, 
Physical Occult Manifestations Are Considered Less Important 
Than Verbal—But the Verbal Continue to Be Associated with 
Subconscious Intellection. 

We have been considering the nature of truth as 
determined by that which men show that they seek 
when searching for it, by that which they suppose them¬ 
selves to find when obtaining it, and by that which they 
do when receiving or imparting its influence. The ob¬ 
ject of this volume is to inquire into the nature, not 


52 THE PSYC1I0L0GY OF IXSPIRATION 


only of truth in general, but of that particular depart¬ 
ment of it—already cliscust to some extent, but not 
fundamentally—which is termed the truth of inspira¬ 
tion. It becomes incumbent upon us now, therefore, 
in accordance with the purpose indicated on page 9, 
to gain a clear understanding, if we can, of what is 
meant by inspiration. The word itself may indicate 
in part an answer to this question. Those using and 
justifying the term believe in an inner as distinguished 
from an outer influence exerted upon the mind, and at¬ 
tributable to a spiritual source. They may acknowd- 
cdge that a man may be inspired in connection with 
what he hears or sees, as by a patriotic song or a flag; 
but they do not acknowledge any necessary or inevitable 
connection between the external object and the effect. 
They point out that another man, standing by the side 
of the first, might be conscious of no inspiring influence; 
and also that vast numbers of those subject to this 
influence experience it irrespective of any appeal what¬ 
ever to any of the senses; and the source of this appeal, 
because not necessitating, in order to make itself felt, 
any such material agency, is termed spiritual. 

This term spiritual, as thus used, is very broad and 
varied in its meaning. But one fact may be said to be 
uniformly true of it. It always refers to an effect ex¬ 
perienced within the mind, which effect, tho it may be 
an indirect result, is never a direct result of anything 
seen, heard, felt, smelt, or tasted in the external world. 
Some, however, conceive of the effect as not external 




nr&PIRA TION 


53 


or material in the sense only of being mental— i.e., as 
having been derived or developed in one’s own mind. 
Others—and well-nigh all religionists—conceive of the 
effect as one produced, without the necessary inter¬ 
vention of the senses, by one mind upon another. 
They differ, however, when trying to determine what 
or whose mind it is that produces the effect. One 
holds that it is the mind of some person now living upon 
the earth; another, of some spirit that formerly lived 
upon the earth; another, of some intelligence of a differ¬ 
ent order from any that has ever lived upon the earth; 
and, finally, another, that it is the mind of the Deity. 
The first may be said to be, in the main, the view of the 
mere psychologist; the second, the view of the modern 
spiritist; the third, the view of some spiritists, and of 
many Christians, especially Catholics; and the fourth, 
the view of the majority of orthodox Protestants. The 
Bible, in mentioning the effects of the Apostles’ preach¬ 
ing (Acts 17; 1-4), the reappearances of Moses and 
Elias (Matt. 17; 3), and the appearances of angels of 
God (Acts 27; 23), as well as of the Lord (Jer. 31; 3), 
and of God (2 Chron. 1; 7), seems to sanction all four 
views. Even this fact, however, tho acknowledged, 
does not reconcile the conservative Christian to spirit¬ 
ism. Because of the passage in Rev. 22; 18, “For I 
testify unto every man that heareth the words of the 
prophecy of this Book, If any man shall add unto 
these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that 
are written in this Book,” which passage is taken to 



54 TILE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


refer not merely to the Book of the Revelation, but to 
the whole Scriptures, he maintains that all that can 
be rightly deemed inspired revelation has ceased. To 
account, however, for cases in which new doctrines 
have apparently been proclaimed, some Episcopalians 
and all Catholics hold that certain officials of the Church, 
individually, or assembled in lawful councils, are di¬ 
vinely guided to interpret the “ truth once delivered ” 
(Jude, 3); and are sometimes inspired to develop it 
even to the extent, in connection with councils of the 
Church, of giving it unforetokened meanings. This 
attributing of inspired authority to develop the truth 
is paralleled by a somewhat similar authority attributed 
by Mohammedans, Mormons, and New Churchmen to 
their respective religious leaders. It is worth while to 
notice also that even some who profess to believe that 
revelation is no longer imparted through inspiration, 
nevertheless seem inclined to judge the trustworthi¬ 
ness of those who interpret the traditional doctrines by 
tests suggesting a different opinion. Some Presby¬ 
terians have a subtle belief in the inspiration of the 
answer in the Westminister Catechism to the question, 
(‘What is God?” because this answer was originally 
composed of the first few unpremeditated words of a 
prayer that ended a discussion in which no one had 
been able to think out a satisfactory definition. It is 
doubtful whether there are not a large number of in¬ 
telligent people who have in them a little of the same 
feeling that made the old Seventh-day-Baptist min- 


INSPIRATION 


55 


isters, after reaching their pulpits, open their Bibles 
and take the first text to which a casual undirected 
finger would point. We have probably all heard of 
one of their sermons—on Cant. 2; 12. “The voice of 
the turtle is heard in our land ”—“Brethren, you know 
the turtle ain’t got no voice. But on a summer evenin’, 
as you’re a-walkin’ a-nigh the pools, you hear the 
turtles a-droppin’ off the logs into the water. The 
voice of the turtle is the sound of a droppin’ into the 
water, the sound of a baptism, the sound of a joinin’ of 
the Church—that’s the sound of the good time cornin’.” 
It must be owing, too, to some belief in present relig¬ 
ious inspiration that, to-day, the most popular ideal 
of a distinctively religious teacher, to say nothing of a 
prophet, excludes anything supposed to call particular 
attention to his own conscious intellection, or even to 
his own intellect. He may possess, and add to his in¬ 
fluence by possessing, accuracy of observation, breadth 
of information, and brilliancy of style, but it is felt that 
the value of his work does not depend mainly upon 
them. He is supposed to be guided to his utterance 
by a spiritual agency that works within him, and 
which can, occasionally, make the wx>rds of an ignorant 
fisherman or a weak child as enlightening and uplifting 
as those coming from the lips of the most learned scholar 
and skilful advocate. 

Such facts as these are sufficient to indicate among 
religionists a belief in an inner or occult sphere of the 
mind which can be influenced in other ways than 


56 THE PS YCIIOL 0 G Y OF INSPIRA TION 


through the senses. Let us notice now some of the 
proofs that may be adduced in order to confirm this 
belief. To begin with, all philosophers admit—tho 
they may explain differently—the existence of this 
occult mental sphere. Of its operations, a man is 
ordinarily unconscious; and of its results he can know 
so far only as they may influence another sphere of 
which he is ordinarily conscious. So different, in fact, 
are the operations in these two spheres, often engaged, 
as we shall find, in carrying on at the same time two 
different processes of thought (see page 62), that they 
have been termed—tho, of course, not with scientific 
exactness, as the reader will understand whenever sug¬ 
gestions of this are made hereafter—two minds, namely, 
the conscious and the subconscious, which latter term 
is used to indicate a mind of some of the results of 
which we are conscious, but of the processes of which 
we are unconscious. It is noteworthy, too, that, even 
in the physical frame, there are indications of duality 
in the mental constitution. Not only are there tw^o 
separate lobes in the brain, each apparently containing 
a separate set of mental organs, but there are two 
systems of nerves connecting the brain with the rest of 
the body. It has not been proved that, of the two lobes 
in the brain, one is the seat of conscious and the other 
of subconscious action; but this has been proved of the 
two sets of nerves. Those of the cerebrospinal system, 
which move the hands, limbs, and the facial and vocal 
organs, are controlled by conscious action; those of 


THE SUBCONSCIOUS SPHERE OF MIND 57 


the sympathetic system, which move the circulatory 
and digestive organs, are controlled by subconscious 
action. To complete the correspondence, as prepara¬ 
tory to observing the way in which the conscious and 
the subconscious spheres often work conjointly, it is 
well to notice, also, that there are certain movements, 
like winking and breathing, which can be carried on 
both consciously and unconsciously. 

In considering these two spheres of mental activity 
and the relations between them, it is unnecessary to 
dwell upon the sphere of which we are conscious. But 
it is important, for a proper realization of all the bear¬ 
ings upon religion of that which we are now discussing 
to develop, for a little, certain facts and inferences with 
reference to the subconscious sphere. The facts with 
which we are most familiar are afforded, perhaps, by 
memory. The mind is constantly recalling experi¬ 
ences of which it has been so thoroughly oblivious that 
they have been supposed to have been lost. But 
equally conclusive evidences of the same subconscious 
possibility may be furnished by other mental processes. 
When trains of thought are conducting to conclusions 
with the rapidity of lightning, what is the mind doing 
but making use of stores not only, but of methods that 
are not outside of it but in it, and yet are hidden so 
deeply in it as to be beyond the reach of any conscious 
control? In normal mental action we are only partly 
aware of the extent and importance of these stores, 
and may be startled to hear it stated that, probablv 


58 TEE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


nothing whatever that a man has ever seen, heard, 
touched, tasted, smelled, or, by the slightest practise, 
developed into the suggestion of a habit, is lost, but 
remains indelibly imprest upon the intellect and 
character. Nevertheless such seems to be the case. 
Captain Frederick Marryat, author of “The Adventures 
of a Naval Officer,” relates that at one time he jumped 
into the sea to save a sailor’s life, and, on rising, found 
himself in the midst of blood, giving evidence of the 
presence of a shark. Between that moment and the 
moment almost immediately following, when he was 
rescued, he reexperienced, according to his story, about 
everything that he had ever done or said or thought. 
Coleridge states, in his “Biographia Literaria,” that in 
a German village near Gottingen a young woman, 
twenty-five years of age, who could neither read nor 
write, was seized with a fever. While in this state she 
kept constantly repeating Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. 
Her physician, being of a scientific turn, traced back 

w 

her history. He found that she had once been a serv¬ 
ant in the house of a Protestant pastor. This man 
had been in the habit, while walking up and down in a 
passage into which the kitchen opened, of reading in a 
loud voice Latin, Greek, and rabbinical Hebrew. 
Many of the very phrases, which the physician had 
taken down in writing at her bedside, were found in 
the rabbinical books in this man’s library. 

Results analogous to these—occasioned, as will be 
noticed, in the one case by fright and in the other by 


HYPNOTISM 


59 


fever—may be produced by hypnotism. That hypno¬ 
tism exists as a fact, no one informed with reference 
to the subject now thinks of denying. An influence 
that can enable a patient, without being conscious of 
pain, to have a tooth pulled or a limb amputated is a 
reality. An influence, not induced by another, but 
apparently self-induced by nervous excitement, which 
can cause our Southern negroes in revival meetings to 
fall down as if dead, and fail to feel pins vigorously 
stuck into them—a fact which many have confirmed— 
is a reality. This much being conceded to hypnotic 
influence, perhaps it should be added here, in prepara¬ 
tion for several references that will be made to the 
subject hereafter, that there is every reason for sup¬ 
posing that the immediate effect of the condition, like 
that of fright and of fever, is physical rather than, as 
sometimes supposed, mental. It may be described as 
a method of putting the conscious body and, through 
it, the conscious sphere of the mind to sleep. When 
this has been done, that which is in subconsciousness 
may be made to wake up, and to take charge of the 
body’s organs of expression. But there is no proof 
that hypnotism does any more than furnish an oppor¬ 
tunity, availing itself of which the subconscious can 
exercise its influence in a way normal to itself, yet not 
ordinarily observed because hidden behind the activi¬ 
ties of consciousness. The germs of thought from 
which the conceptions of the hypnotic patient are de¬ 
veloped are often very elementary in character. Sub- 


60 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


jects possessing no oratorical gifts, for instance, are 
told to personate some famous public speaker, and 
at once they set out, and, with apparent ease, deliver 
addresses closely resembling not only in method but in 
phraseology some speech of this man which they have 
previously heard or read, tho only in an extremely 
superficial and heedless way. The author himself 
knows of a reasonably authentic instance, being per¬ 
sonally acquainted with all the parties concerned, in 
which—tho in the presence, indeed, of one familiar 
with the Italian language, which fact may have in¬ 
fluenced the result—a man who knew nothing of this 
language, when hypnotized by another, who also knew 
nothing of it, was made to sing, with correct Italian 
words and pronunciation, a song which the subject had 
heard but once, and this years before. 

This occult action of the mind, of which we are 
speaking, is not confined, however, to memory. If it 
were, its results could all be allied to the ordinary phe¬ 
nomena of recollection, of which it would merely be an 
unusual development. Similar action is evident in 
connection with logical and mathematical processes, 
and even with those involving skill, which would 
appear, at first thought, especially dependent upon 
conscious direction. Von Hartmann, in his “Philoso¬ 
phy of the Unconscious/ ’ as translated by W. C. Coup¬ 
land, quotes this passage from Jessen’s “Psychology”: 
“When we reflect on anything with the whole force of 
our mind, we may fall into a state of entire unconscious- 


SUBCONSCIOUS INTELLECTION 


61 


ness, in which we not only forget the outer world, but 
also know nothing at all of ourselves and the thoughts 
passing within us. After a shorter or longer time, we 
then suddenly awake as from a dream, and usually at 
the same moment the result of our meditation appears 
clearly and distinctly in consciousness without our 
knowing how we have reached it. Also, in less severe 
meditation, there occur moments in which a perfect 
vacancy of thought is combined with a consciousness of 
our own mental effort, to which, in the next moment, 
a more vivid stream of thought succeeds. Certainly, 
some practise is required to combine serious reflection 
with simultaneous self-observation, as the endeavor 
to observe thoughts in their origin and their succes 
sion may easily produce disturbances of thinking and 
arrest the evolution of our thoughts. Repeated at¬ 
tempts, however, put us in a position clearly to per¬ 
ceive that, in fact, in every arduous reflection a con¬ 
stant ebb and flow of thoughts, as it were, takes place 
—a moment in which all thoughts disappear from 
consciousness, and only the consciousness of an inner 
mental strain remains, and a moment in which the 
thoughts stream in, in greater fulness, and distinctly 
emerge into consciousness. The lower the ebb, the 
stronger the succeeding flood is wont to be; the stronger 
the previous inner tension, the stronger and livelier the 
contents of the emerging thoughts.” Whether or not 
the reader has ever been able to detect these two proc¬ 
esses in his own thinking, he may, at least, recognize 


62 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF IHSPIRATIOH 

that others have done so; and it is in logical accordance 
with the inferences derived from the existence of both 
processes that certain scholars have maintained that 
by fixing their attention in the evening just before re¬ 
tiring for the night upon some subject—whether de¬ 
tails to be committed to memory or problems to be 
solved—they could find their work very much furthered 
if not wholly completed, in the morning. It is said 
that the astronomer Kepler used to practise upon 
this theory. 

The fact of the existence, side by side, of mental 
action both subconscious and conscious is much more 
easy to prove than most of us are aware. How often 
have we heard a friend unconsciously hum or even sing 
aloud in perfect time and tune a song, while his con¬ 
scious energies were directed toward the accomplish¬ 
ment of a task entirely different in character! We 
are all more or less familiar, too, with the conditions 
under which a conscious action, or series of actions, 
may be made to become unconscious. Every one who 
has acquired skill in any department knows that it is a 
result of practise continued until the mind has become 
enabled to superintend a large number of details with¬ 
out having any of them clearly in consciousness. Every 
musician, for instance, is aware that after repeating a 
composition on the piano the execution may become 
so familiar that his fingers will play it automatically, 
as it were, while his thoughts are very intently fixt 
upon something else, possibly upon the general ex- 


COBURN AND MOZART 63 

pression of the theme of the music, possibly upon some¬ 
thing having nothing to do with this art in any form. 

When the subconscious action of the mind takes 
place in connection with processes which a man has 
learned and mastered, we may always attribute it, as 
we do recollection, to previous conscious action. But 
there are cases in which previous conscious action has 
had nothing to do with the subconscious action. As 
illustrating what is meant, take first the cases of light¬ 
ning calculators, as they are termed—many of them 
mere children, who have hardly mastered reading and 
writing, much less arithmetic. In a way apparently 
unknown to themselves, they are able to solve the most 
intricate mathematical problem almost as rapidly as 
it can be read to them. Zerah Coburn was but eight 
years old when exhibited before audiences of the fore¬ 
most mathematicians of his time. Here, according to 
the English “Annual Register” of 1812, are two of the 
questions asked him, and answered before the numbers 
could be w T ritten down: “What is the square root of 
106,929?” “What is the cube root of 268,336,125?” 
Or take, again, the cases of musicians able to execute 
apparently the most difficult compositions without 
having gone through any previous study or practise. 
Mozart was only three years old when he began to play 
in public concerts, and when only eight years old he 
had composed a symphony for a full orchestra. He 
was, however, the son of a musician, and his facility 
might be attributed to some extent to his surroundings 


64 THE PS YCHOL 0 GY OF IKS PIP A TI ON 


or to heredity. But neither of these reasons can in any 
way account for the performances of others. There 
is for instance, in our own country, Blind Tom, as he 
is called. He is an exceptionally ignorant negro, yet 
he can remember and execute, apparently, any compo¬ 
sition that has been played but once before him; and 
on the spur of the moment, he can sometimes add to 
what he has heard “variations ’ 1 as successful as the 
average of those resulting from long hours of labor on 
the part of educated musicians. 

In these cases, the ultimate results of subconscious 
mentality are not essentially different from w T hat might 
be expected if facility w r ere acquired through practise 
directed by conscious effort. It is possible to conceive 
of thoroughly educated mathematicians and musicians 
who, after long experience, might produce effects ex¬ 
actly similar to those that have just been mentioned. 
We can only say of these latter effects that in them the 
subconscious facility was not acquired through con¬ 
scious effort as a fact. But now, going a step farther, 
we shall find that there are cases in which it could not 
have been acquired thus as a possibility. We shall 
find that subconscious or occult action is sometimes 
influenced by conditions or occurrences with which 
the mind could not have become acquainted through 
the eyes or ears, or by any method through which one 
ordinarily obtains or develops knowledge or thought. 
The following is an illustration of such a case. Some 
years ago, Professor John W. Churchill, of Andover 


OCCULT PERCEPTION OF THE DISTANT 65 

Theological Seminary, gave the author permission to 
use the following story. In order to try an experiment, 
the professor said that he obtained the names and ad¬ 
dresses of two persons in Boston, of whom he knew 
nothing, except that they were patients of a physician 
of his acquaintance. With these addresses in his pos¬ 
session, he called upon a certain Dr. Tucker, residing 
in Brooklyn, N. Y. This man, a graduate of the 
Harvard Medical School, claimed to have discovered 
in himself, soon after beginning to practise, a peculiar 
supernormal gift. The professor wished to test it. 
“Can you prescribe/’ he asked, “for a person now in 
Boston?” “I think so,” said the doctor. “Have 
you his address?” The professor read one of the ad¬ 
dresses that he had brought. “I will go,” said the 
doctor, “and see the patient.” Then, placing his 
hand on his brow, he began to talk something like this: 
“Number —, Blank Street. Yes, I see—red brick 
house—two stories—bay window on the first floor. I 
enter—a winding stairway. The patient is in the 
second-story front room—a lady—blonde—blue eyes 
—rather stout—about thirty-five years old—is trou¬ 
bled,” etc., describing her symptoms and ending with 
a diagnosis and prescription. After attending to this 
patient, the physician went through a similar process 
with reference to the other. Professor Churchill 
handed a copy of what had been said, as taken down by 
the Brooklyn physician’s stenographer, to the physician 
in Boston. “Everything here,” said this physician, 


66 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


“is as accurate as it would be if the one who dictated 
it had come here by rail, visited the houses, and heard 
the patients describe their own symptoms.” In olden 
times—possibly in some places in our own time—a 
physician whose mind could act in this way would be 
considered to be under the influence of divine inspira¬ 
tion. But it can be shown that Dr. Tucker was not so. 
The ability to work “signs and wonders” of this kind 
does not necessarily guarantee the truth of the words 
uttered by the workers of them. The author knows of 
at least one patient—a son of the Rev. Dr. J. M. Lud¬ 
low, of Orange, N. J.—with reference to whom the 
occult diagnosis of this physician, tho agreeing with 
that of other eminent physicians consulted, was shown 
by a post-mortem examination to have been unmistak¬ 
ably erroneous. Yet a previous description, super- 
normally given, of the symptoms and appearance of 
the patient had been as accurate as in the cases men¬ 
tioned above. 

In these cases the mind seems to have been able to 
control the course of its occult activity, and to examine 
symptoms, and to exercise judgment, when as far from 
its own body as Boston is from Brooklyn. Here is 
another case in which no such control was exercised. 
Yet the conditions at a distance were just as accurately 
perceived. Notice, too, how thoroughly the circum¬ 
stances justify such a use as is made in “Macbeth” of 
the appearance of Banquo’s ghost. The story was 
related to the author by an eye-witness, General Karge, 



OCCULT PERCEPTION OF THE DISTANT 67 

a successful officer in our war of secession, and, for 
about twenty years, a professor in Princeton College. 
He presented the story as one of other reasons leading 
to his giving up certain wholly materialistic views of 
life, into which he had fallen in early manhood. He 
said that during the war of secession, while recruiting 
in New York City, he was on Fourteenth Street, opposite 
the Academy of Music, taking supper in the rooms of 
an Austrian military engineer who also was in the serv¬ 
ice of our government. This Austrian had a son, a 
graduate of the military school of Hanover, Germany, 
who, some months before this, with his father’s con¬ 
nivance, had eloped from that place with the daughter 
of a Jewish banker, whose consent to her marriage 
could not be obtained. According to Jewish customs, 
the banker, after his daughter’s flight, had gone through 
a ceremony in his synagogue excommunicating and 
anathematizing her for marrying against his will and 
outside her race. Very naturally this ceremony had 
had a serious effect upon the daughter’s mind. At the 
time of the occurrence about to be related, the Jewess 
was presiding at the table at which the engineer and the 
general were seated, her husband being absent. Sud¬ 
denly, her hand, which happened to be holding a cup 
of tea, and her whole frame began to quiver; then, with 
a frightened look upon her face, she shrieked out in 
German, '‘My father is dead! My father is dead! ” and 
fell senseless to the floor. A physician was summoned, 
but the lady, tho partially restored physically, did not, 


G8 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 

for a long time at least, recover her reason. Soon after 
the physician had arrived, the Austrian engineer and 
the general, in talking over the circumstances, decided 
to take down the exact time of the day. They did so, 
and three weeks later—telegraphic communication be¬ 
tween Europe and America had not then been estab¬ 
lished—they received information that the banker had 
died in Germany at virtually the same hour at which 
the events just described had taken place in New 
York. 

Exactly what was the form assumed by the impres¬ 
sions conveyed to this Jewess the general never ascer¬ 
tained. It never was feasible to do so, owing to her 
mental condition. But that sometimes in such cases 
persons are seen, and at other times words are heard, 
seems abundantly proved. Certain reports made to 
the English Society of Psychical Research, published 
by Meyers & Gurney in a volume entitled “ Phan¬ 
tasms of the Living/ 7 contain accounts of something 
like six hundred experiences of the same general char¬ 
acter, all occurring in our own times, and confirmed 
by the testimony of at least two persons. Many of 
these persons, too, who all give their names and ad¬ 
dresses, are widely known. One remarkable feature of 
such occurrences is that, in an occult way, they make 
known not only that which is distant in space, but 
sometimes also future in time, nothing, perhaps, being 
better authenticated than the experience which certain 
persons have of premonitions. Nor is there much 


OCCULT PERCEPTION OF THE FUTURE 69 


reason to doubt that, in rare cases, the remote future* 
even is foreseen with an accuracy of detail as perfect 

♦When studying this subject, several years ago, the author used to hear 
a large number of predictions, but the conclusion reached by him was that in 
no circumstances was it worth while to anticipate either trouble or success on 
the supposition that the predictions might be fulfilled. Almost all of them were 
proved to be mere fabrications of fraud or fancy. But now and then, with just 
sufficient frequency to throw doubt upon the result’s being due to mere coinci¬ 
dence, such a prediction would be fulfilled, and with marvelous accuracy. For 
instance, an English psychometrist consulted without premeditation because of 
a sign seen on a door—a man who, as a psychometrist (see note on page 160 ), 
might, of course, have merely perceived distant property occultly, and, as any 
man might upon seeing it normally, have made a guess w r ith reference to its 
prospective value—described a house, of the existence of which the author was 
conscious of knowing nothing. The house was said to be a thousand miles or 
so away from where they were, and in a certain State where the author had 
never spent more than a week, the name of which State was given. The house 
was described so that its identity and surroundings could be recognized. It 
was stated that, on account of visiting a place in sight of this house, the author 
would obtain a sufficient sum of money to become independent. Two years 
later, he found himself in the State indicated, face to face with just such a house, 
and, because of being there, a difference of opinion arose with reference to prop¬ 
erty which he partly owned. This difference led to his accepting an offer to 
divide the property, and in less than a year, tho no part of that which went to 
others had increased in value, his had increased tenfold. It seems important to 
add, in order to show the method in which such prophecies—if they be prophecies 
—are usually fulfilled, that the statement heard two years before had mc.de no 
impression upon him, and would probably have been forgotten had it not been 
written down in a note-book. Nor was it the influence of the prediction that 
had brought about the result, this being owing to wholly unexpected and un¬ 
solicited offers made and urged upon his acceptance by others. Such facts 
seem to indicate that, possibly, our conceptions, not only of space, but of time, 
are due to material limitations, and that the mind, so far as it can act outside 
of these, can occasionally look forward as readily as sideward. At any rate, 
there seems to be a sense in which every man has his own destiny rolled up 
within him; and in rare instances, as applied to rare occurrences, it may be 
supernormally unrolled. Notice, for instance, the following, told by an excep¬ 
tionally trustworthy person, a friend of the author: This friend, while on a visit 
to an uncle who was a physician, accompanied this uncle when calling upon a 
patient suffering from a nervous disorder. The patient, a complete stranger 
from a distant city, almost before being introduced, turned upon the physician’s 
companion, who, as it happened, was to be married in a few days, and said: 
“You will not marry the person to whom you are engaged. But do not regret 
it. You will marry happily this person’s most intimate friend.” The predic¬ 
tion was fulfilled in all regards, the intended wedding being first postponed and 
then prevented by the parents of the engaged parties, owing to a disagree¬ 
ment because the family of the one was Protestant and the family of the other 
was not. 


70 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


as could be afforded to an eye-witness. All of us have 
read of reasonably authenticated prophecies that have 
been made to men and women who have subsequently 
had exceptional careers; and these have been by no 
means confined to those living in prehistoric periods. 
Take, for instance, the prophecies of their careers said 
to have been made to Marie Antoinette and the Empress 
Josephine, or by the Indian Kanawa of George Wash¬ 
ington in his early life: “ He can not die in battle. The 
Great Spirit protects that man and guides his destinies. 
He will become the chief of nations, and a people yet 
unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire.” 
Or take Abraham Lincoln’s dream about a ship, as told 
by him on the day on which he was assassinated, and 
which, as he then said, he had dreamed several times on 
the night preceding some trying event in the history of 
the nation. Another characteristic of this inner or occult 
mentality needs to be noticed. It can not only trans¬ 
gress the limitations of matter, and see or hear things at 
a distance in space or in time, but without the exercise 
of any power that, in the slightest degree, resembles 
sight or hearing, it can cause consciousness to become 
cognizant of the thoughts and feelings, both conscious 
and subconscious, that are at work in the minds of 
others. We have an example of this in ordinary mind¬ 
reading, in which one person, or a number of persons, 
will think of some action, and a third person, not told 
what the action is, will perform it. Frequently, how¬ 
ever, a proficient mind-reader, instead of being in- 


MIND-READING 


71 


fluenced by the conscious thoughts of others, is in¬ 
fluenced by their subconscious thoughts. He will 
speak of scenes and events entirely forgotten by them 
and buried in memory, but which, when thus unex¬ 
pectedly recalled, are recognized as being detailed with 
accuracy. Undoubtedly many of the phenomena of 
modern spiritism are of this nature. The medium, 
possibly because thrown by his visitors into a fully or 
partially hypnotic condition, recalls facts which are 
stored in their subconscious memories. This explana¬ 
tion would account both for the accuracy of the de¬ 
liverances and for their apparent strangeness. “I was 
not thinking at all of this subject,” says the visitor, 
“and was told so-and-so about it.” Indeed, the writer, 
in experimenting once with an extremely successful 
mind-reader, found that this man had the most success 
in reading certain words written by another and kept 
concealed when the one who wrote them did not concen¬ 
trate his thought upon them, but, in a general way, 
thought of something else. 

Connected with this ability of the mind, through its 
subconscious powers, to receive communications from 
outside itself are some very interesting developments. 
The Rev. William Stanton Moses states that while his 
hand was automatically writing his “Psychography,” 
he spent his time in reading Plato. It is frequently 
supposed that such statements are due to self-decep¬ 
tion or falsehood, and that all automatic writing on the 
part of “spiritist mediums” is fraudulent. In some 


72 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 


cases this may be so (see page 101). But in other cases 
it is not. The author is well acquainted with a Presby¬ 
terian Doctor of Divinity, in exceptionally good stand¬ 
ing, who himself, with other members of his family, 
practised automatic writing, till the results became so 
inexplicably accurate as literally to frighten them and 
they desisted. The author is acquainted with another 
person into whose mind come the words of essays con¬ 
cerning subjects of which, sometimes, the person 
writing them knows nothing when the essays begin. 
The sentences in these essays are involved, and their 
meanings difficult to determine. But after being 
written down, the one whose hand has transcribed 
them studies them, exactly as one would an early Eng¬ 
lish text, and then translates them into plain English, 
and publishes them—usually in religious weeklies. 
This person is a spiritist, the reader may think. Not 
at all; but, at the time when these things were told, 
had never attended a spiritist seance, and was strongly 
opposed to any one’s doing it. Then an untrust¬ 
worthy enthusiast, the reader may think. Not at all, 
again; but was the president of a society with ramifi¬ 
cations all over the country, among the officers and 
members of which were clergymen and others whose 
names were household words in exceptionally conserva¬ 
tive Christian denominations. 

Indeed, any of us who may succeed in gaining the 
confidence of those about us will be amazed to find how 
many have had individual experiences of such a nature 


APPARITIONS 


73 


as to confirm the general trustworthiness of all the 
statements that have been made here with reference 
to the occult action of the mind. “You knew my 
son/’ said Bishop Whipple, of Minnesota, to Dr. J. S. 
Shipman, rector of Christ’s Church, New York, who 
repeated the words to the author, “the night that he 
died, a thousand miles away from home, he came back, 
and we saw him.” After making every allowance pos¬ 
sible for mistakes in judgment, for mere hallucinations, 
and for coincidences, there remains a mass of evidence 
by rejecting which a man shows more credulity with ref¬ 
erence to material limitations than he could show with 
reference to immaterial possibilities by accepting.* 

The supposed apparition mentioned in the preceding 
paragraph suggests what, for our purposes, is perhaps 
as important as any consideration connected with this 
subject. A few years ago, it was quite common in our 
country to hear clergymen and others ascribe that 
belief fundamental to all religions—the belief in the 
existence of the soul after death—to the revelations 
recorded in the Christian Scriptures. One can not 
easily account for such a misunderstanding or mis¬ 
representation of facts. Every observant traveler or 

*An exhaustive enumeration and description of treatises dealing with the 
occult will be found in the Bibliographical Index of “Demon Possessions and 
Allied Themes,” written by J. L. Nevius, D.D., for forty years a Presbyterian 
missionary to the Chinese, and published by the Fleming H. Revell Company, of 
Chicago, 1894. Few are aware how thoroughly and scientifically this whole 
subject has been studied, or how extensive and valuable is the literature that 
treats of it. Dr. Nevius, it may be said, acknowledges communications from 
spirits; but, apparently, from evil spirits only, dividing into good and evil those 
whom the modern spiritist would divide into the more or less “developed.” 




74 THE PSYCTIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


historian knows that this belief is practically universal, 
as proved not only by that which is usually taught, but 
by such practises as the placing with the dead of their 
weapons and clothing, as among the aboriginal Ameri¬ 
cans, Australians, and Africans; or the worshiping of 
the dead; and, at stated seasons, scores of years after 
their burial, the spreading of tables before their graves, 
as among the Japanese and Chinese; as well as by 
what is indicated upon the monuments, or is taken for 
granted in the literature of ancient Assyria, Egypt, 
Greece, and Rome. Indeed, it is simply a fact that 
among the people of Asia to-day there are more cus¬ 
toms end ceremonies suggesting a belief in a life after 
death than there are among the Christians of Europe 
and America; and there are more references to such a 
life in the literature of ancient Greece and Rome than 
in that of Judea. Every schoolboy who has studied 
classic mythology can recall descriptions of Elyseum 
and Hades in the writings of the former peoples; but 
our most learned commentators have failed to find 
more than a very few references to any such belief 
throughout the entire Old Testament. Nor among 
non-Christian people is there any failure to believe in 
future states of rewards and punishments. These also 
are described, or taken for granted, by the classic 
writers, and are just as thoroughly taught by the Budd¬ 
hists and other religionists of the Orient as by our¬ 
selves. 

Now, how did such beliefs originate? The theory 


BELIEF IN ANOTHER LIFE 


75 


held in our country a few years ago attributed them, 
except among the Hebrews, to the imagination. It 
was said that they were gradually developed in human 
experience, at times when it was affected by such re¬ 
sults as the rustling of trees in dark woods, or the 
dashing of waves on lonely shores—results arousing 
the mind to superstition, while they worked upon the 
sources of apprehension and conscience. Even more 
specific beliefs with reference to the personality of the 
gods, and their relations to men, were supposed to be 
derived through natural methods of development— , 
some of them, for instance, through the same methods 
as those causing the formation of language. Take, 
for example, such an argument as this: When men 
had no word for the sun, they would naturally call it 
the father of the day, or—for a similar reason—call the 
earth a mother; and owing to this usage of words they 
would, after a time, come to associate real fatherhood 
with the one, or motherhood with the other, and finally 
to imagine each to have a personality, and thus to 
worship the sun or the earth as a god. Max Muller, 
in the fourth of his lectures on “The Science of Re¬ 
ligion/ ? gives a modification of this view, tho still at¬ 
tributing the origin of religion to imagination. He 
says that when the primitive man, feeling his incom¬ 
pleteness and need of dependence, and wanting some¬ 
thing like a father in heaven, chose the name sky to 
express his conception of it, he “did not mean . . . 
that the visible sky was all he wanted. , . . But when 


76 THE PSYCEOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 

that name had to be used with the young and the aged, 
with silly children and doting grandmothers, it was 
impossible to preserve it from being misunderstood. 
The first step downward would be to look upon the 
sky as the abode of that being which was called by 
the same name. . . . Lastly, many things that were 
true of the visible sky would be told of its divine name¬ 
sake, and legends would spring up destroying every 
trace of the deity that once was hidden beneath that 
ambiguous name.” 

There is undoubtedly much truth in what is thus 
exprest, so far as it may be supposed to apply to the 
development of religious conceptions. But it does not 
explain the origin of the germ from which these con¬ 
ceptions were developed. Such statements fail to 
penetrate to the source, they fail to go to the bottom 
of the subject. They fail to show us why winds, waves, 
or skies, in combination w T ith darkness, loneliness, or 
weakness, should cause a man to associate noise, force, 
or height with the influence of spirits; or to show us 
why particular uses of language or applications of it 
to things on earth or in heaven should suggest this in¬ 
fluence. We attribute certain noises in our houses to 
the shutting of a door, to the draft of a furnace, or to 
the gnawing of mice. But why do we do this? Be¬ 
cause we have had experience, or others have had ex¬ 
perience of which they have told us, of similar noises 
that could be traced to these sources. This is that 
which occasions and justifies our inferences. Just so, 


BELIEF IN ANOTHER LIFE 


77 


experiences of his own or of others like the one related 
on page 73 would justify superstitious inferences on 
the part of the primitive man. But nothing else 
would. If the man had never had such experiences, 
or heard of them, he might attribute certain sounds to 
birds or to animals, but he would not think of attribu¬ 
ting them to spirits. Take into a forest one who has 
never been told that there are ghosts, and 3 mu will 
have a hard time convincing him that any of the noises 
about him are produced by a being impossible to see. 
Only, therefore, as we consider the possibility of the 
mind’s being actually influenced at certain times from 
the hidden or occult in nature do we seem to have a 
thoroughly satisfactory reason for the prevalence of 
superstitious beliefs. 

That this is the true reason appears probable, more¬ 
over, in view of the fact that any consciousness what¬ 
ever of being influenced through subconscious mentality 
is more likely to be experienced by a primitive, unedu¬ 
cated man than by an educated one. Education gives 
one control over his mental resources. It causes him 
to understand himself, as we say, or to be conscious of 
himself. This control, once established as a habit, 
inclines him to hold in check the promptings of the 
subconscious, so that its effects shall manifest them¬ 
selves either not at all, or only indirectly, by coalescing 
with those of which he is conscious. When this is the 
condition, the suggestions and. imaginings due to sub¬ 
conscious intellection can not easily be distinguished 


78 TEE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOE 

from the results of conscious intellection. The edu¬ 
cated man, looking at his subconscious nature, as he 
does, through a glass darkly, always seems to see the 
texture of the material veil hanging in front of it. With 
the uneducated man, however, it is different. Influ¬ 
ences exerted through the subconscious often appeal 
to him directly. Indeed, there are reasons for believing 
that when we go lower than the uneducated man we 
find these influences appealing even to the animal. 
There are reasons for believing that they are allied to 
all manifestations of intelligence which, in the absence 
of a predominating mental control, such as has just 
been said to characterize the educated man, we at¬ 
tribute to instinct. 

Mr. Henry R. Marshall, in his “ Instinct and Reason,” 
defines instinct, which, in another place, he shows to be 
largely hereditary, as “the force within us which tends 
to make us act under certain conditions as all others 
who are of the same type—which leads us to under¬ 
take typical reactions.” Instinct , for instance, makes 
us, without conscious thought, ward off with our hand 
a stone that seems moving toward our head. Reason , 
he defines as “the force which tends to make us vary 
from such typical reactions,” as, for instance, not to 
Ward off the stone when we have learned that it is fast¬ 
ened to a string and can not reach our head. From 
this conception it seems logical to associate the action 
of instinct with any mental manifestation which is not 
the result of reason. But the range of mental action 



INSTINCT AND REASON 


79 


which is not the result of conscious reason is exceed¬ 
ingly large. There is occult or subconscious mental 
action, which seems to correspond both to that which 
is due to instinct, as in the case of conscience, and also 
to that which is due to a certain amount of reasoning, 
as in cases of lightning calculators and automatic 
writers. At the same time all that we can not con¬ 
sciously attribute to reason, whether it be due to 
instinct because hereditary, or to automatic physical 
or mental action because acquired by practise, or to 
subconscious reason acting behind all instinctive move¬ 
ments, as some suppose it to act behind the movements 
of the lower animals—all this we may call, because, 
as distinguished from rational, it seems to be such, 
instinctive —a word which differs from instinct in being 
an adjective signifying an effect which has the quality 
or appearance of that which results from instinct. 

In the volume written by the author entitled, “The 
Representative Significance of Form,” it was main¬ 
tained that to the predominance of the instinctive , by 
which is meant spontaneous and unpremeditated men¬ 
tal action, like that of conscience or of aspiration— 
we are mainly indebted for our conceptions of those 
laws of being and becoming which give expression to the 
methods of the Creative Spirit, and which constitute 
what men term religious truth; that to the predom¬ 
inance of the reasoning or conscious action of the mind 
we are mainly indebted for scientific truth; while to 
the very nearly harmonious or equal blending of both 


80 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


instinctive and reasoning, of both subconscious and 
conscious, mental action we are mainly indebted for 
artistic truth. 

But why should this be? Especially why should the 
instinctive tendency be allied to religion?—Why but 
because it is this which rules in external nature, and 
therefore represents the Creative disposition and de¬ 
sign? Is it necessary to suppose that this concep¬ 
tion, which is exprest by many of the wisest and 
best, is merely a fabrication of fancy, having no founda¬ 
tion in fact? Does Wordsworth mean nothing when 
he says?— 


I have felt 

A presence that disturbs me with the joy 
Of elevated thoughts ; a sense sublime 
Of something far more deeply interfused, 

Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, 

And the round ocean, and the living air, 

And the blue sky, and in the mind of man : 

A motion and a spirit, that impels 

All thinking things, all objects of all thought, 

And rolls through all things. 

Lines Composed a few Miles above Tintern Abbey. 


Or Matthew Arnold, when he makes a more definite 
reference to the same thought?— 

“Ah, once more,” I cried, “yestars, ye waters, 

On my heart your mighty charm renew; 

Still, still let me, as I gaze upon you, 

Feel my soul becoming vast like you.” 

From the intense, clear, star-sown vault of heaven, 

Over the lit sea’s unquiet way, 

In the rustling night-air, came the answer: 

“ Wouldst thou be as these are ? Live as they.” 

Self-Dependence. 


THE SUBCONSCIOUS IN ANIMALS 


81 


Why should not that which rules in inanimate na¬ 
ture rule also in animate nature? And tho we know 
that it does not rule in a man, except so far as he 
consciously allows it to rule, why should we suppose 
that this conscious action is, in anything like the same 
degree, necessary on the part of the animal. None 
of us ordinarily conceive of an animal as sinning. Why 
is this—even among those foremost to conceive of a 
man as sinning? Why, but because we do not con¬ 
ceive of an animal as consciously violating the laws of 
his being—as consciously doing otherwise than ac¬ 
cording to the promptings of his instinctive or sub¬ 
conscious nature?* But we all know that a man can 
do, and often does do, exactly the opposite of that 
indicated by such promptings. He does this because 
of his higher human possibilities, because of the pre¬ 
ponderating and often counteracting influence that can 
be exerted by his conscious and reflective powers as 
influenced by his physical surroundings. 

Shades of the prison-house begin to close 
Upon the growing Boy, 

But He beholds the light, and whence it flows, 

He sees it in his joy ; 

The Youth, who daily farther from the east 

Must travel, still is Nature’s Priest, 

And by the vision splendid 
Is on his way attended ; 

At length the Man perceives it die away, 

And fade into the light of common day. 

Ode on Intimations of Immortality: Wordsworth. 

♦Possibly it is to the subtle recognition of this fact that we can attribute 
the worship of animals, or the sacredness with which they are, or have been, 
regarded among different people. 


82 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

It is sometimes represented that the story of the 
fall in the third chapter of Genesis can not be made 
to accord with the theory of development—much less 
with that of evolution. But it might be argued with 
some truth that it is exactly the kind of story that can 
be made to accord with this theory. What but a 
mental condition very close to that of an animal could 
be characterized by a lack of “knowledge of good and 
evil,” or a lack of experience of temptation coming 
from without—from the lower physical side of life as 
represented in the serpent—and conflicting with the 
promptings coming from within? Only an animal can 
be true to every condition of his being, and obey these 
latter promptings only, and these unconsciously . A 
man, to be true to every condition of his being, must 
obey them indeed, but consciously and calculatingly, 
and in such a way as to make them conform to the 
good as contrasted with the evil of which the play of 
cause and effect in the outward material world has 
taught him. Very important reasons for holding this 
conception of that which a man should do will be 
given hereafter. At present our business is to make 
sure of the facts on which the conception is based. 

It has been said that there are grounds for supposing 
that the animals are influenced through methods cor¬ 
responding to those according to which men are in¬ 
fluenced through the subconscious or inner sphere of 
the mind. That this is so may be made to appear 
while w T e notice how the animals may be supposed to 


THE SUBCONSCIOUS IN ANIMALS 


83 


communicate with one another. Of course they are 
obliged to communicate without formulating thought 
in words or gestures, because they have neither articu¬ 
lating organs nor hands. But, tho incapable of formu¬ 
lating thought, are they incapable of having it? If 
so, why does a dog wag his tail and ears and growl in 
his sleep? Is he not dreaming? But if he can dream, 
he must be capable of processes of thought. Yet how 
can he have processes of thought, without using words 
or gestures? How but precisely as a man can—by 
seeing in imagination series of pictures? A man when 
hungry thinks not only of the word hungry, but he has 
a vision of something that can be eaten. If he wish 
to tell another what his feeling is, he may use the word 
hungry; and this other also, if understanding the word, 
will have a somewhat similar vision. But notice that 
the essential, indispensable factor is not the word, but 
the vision that is caused in the listener’s mind. The 
word is convenient, and, if a feeling be at all complex, 
it is extremely important, in order to convey distinct¬ 
ness and discrimination of meaning. But the essential 
thing is to cause the vision. Now a dog certainly 
remembers what he has seen. If so, he can probably 
recall it, but to recall it, he must have a vision of it. 
If he himself have a vision of it, ability to transmit 
conceptions in an occult way may enable him to con¬ 
vey a similar vision to another dog’s brain. Is it pos¬ 
sible that this is the way in which animals communicate? 
Why is it not? Any one who will have the patience 


84 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIO 'V 


to watch them will notice that they often communi¬ 
cate without making a single sound or movement. 
Who has never seen two dogs or birds, at some dis¬ 
tance from each other, start at exactly the same 
moment for the same place? Moreover, there is evi¬ 
dence that they are often influenced by men in this 
occult way. How is it that a snake is charmed, or a 
horse broken—or guided, for that matter? The next 
time that the reader is riding a horse, and comes to four 
corners, let him try to turn him in the direction chosen 
without using the reins— i.e., by merely thinking. This 
can sometimes be done. A dog belonging to an ac¬ 
quaintance of the author was in the habit of bounding 
up into a bedroom every morning, and drinking water 
poured out from a pail that had been standing there 
overnight. One day, there was a discussion in this 
dog’s presence with reference to the unhealthiness of 
drinking-water that had been uncovered for as many 
hours as this. From that time, no effort could get him 
to continue his former morning practise. It is hardly 
conceivable that he should have understood the subtle 
distinctions of words, and the bearings of the discussion, 
as men would have done. But it is conceivable that he 
should have been influenced by the concentration of 
the thoughts of the family, with or without the indi¬ 
cation of the fact in their countenances,* upon this 

♦Animals are, undoubtedly, keen readers of the countenance; yet, in order 
to explain all cases, it seems necessary, in connection with this, to suppose them 
to be tamed, trained, and casually influenced according to methods more or less 
resembling those employed in hypnotism. 


THE SUBCONSCIOUS IN THE IGNORANT 85 

particular water as something that one should not drink. 
Nor, apparently, can an animal be influenced by 
the thought of one who is merely near at hand. Dr. 
C. N. Pierce, of Philadelphia, once told the author of a 
dog w T hose master frequently goes to Europe. But 
the moment the steamer bearing the master home 
reaches New York, his family, living sixty miles away, 
are made acquainted with the fact by the movements 
of this dog. The intellection in this case seems to be 
exactly similar to that of an old negress once known 
by the author. She would now and then announce 
by name to her mistress the coming arrival of a guest, 
who would reach the house from one to five hours later. 
This faculty of the negress, which could be paralleled 
by many other illustrations of the mind’s being in¬ 
fluenced from the occult side, perhaps even by that 
instinct which keeps the Indian from being lost amid 
dense, untrodden forests, manifests itself among mem¬ 
bers of the colored race in other ways. It is well known 
by Southern clergymen that, almost invariably, in 
describing their conversions, these people tell of per¬ 
ceiving figures and scenes which they take to be super¬ 
natural; and in such language that it seems scarcely 
possible to suppose the effects to be merely such as 
white men attribute to the imagination. Similar 
visions, too, if not common in this day among the 
Indians, were, at one time, supposed by some tribes to 
be necessary to the formation of character. In north¬ 
ern Michigan, the young men, before being permitted 


86 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


the full prerogatives of manhood, were sent into the 
woods, and made to rest in hammocks swung among 
the trees, and to fast—the identical method pur¬ 
sued by Swedenborg—until they had had more or less 
of what in our day would be termed psychic experience. 
Of course, it is possible that every experience of this 
sort may be a mere hallucination, in the sense in which 
people generally, and not philosophers, use this term— 
i.e., a result of imagination wrought upon by an ab¬ 
normal, if not a diseased, condition of the physical 
nerves. But what of that? It does not lessen the 
force of the argument begun on page 74, which argu¬ 
ment this explanation of the connection between the 
instinctive and the religious has been introduced in 
order to render more intelligible. The argument is 
that such experiences come to certain persons now, 
and have come to others in the past; and that they 
are now, and have been, attributed to causes that are 
not material, normal, or natural, but supposedly the 
opposite—spiritual, supernormal, or supernatural; and 
that this fact, especially in view of the far greater 
number of psychic experiences among the primitive, 
uneducated people who may be supposed to be nearest 
to the animal in their nature sufficiently accounts for 
the origin of primitive beliefs in the supernatural, or 
—what is the same thing—for primitive religion. 

Primitive religious customs, too, strengthen this gen¬ 
eral argument. Among the aborigines of America, 
Africa, and Australia, who, in historic times at least, 


TRANCE CONDITIONS 


87 


have had no chance to imitate one another, there are 
two distinct forms in which spiritual communications 
are supposed to be imparted through the seer, or medi¬ 
cine-man, whatever he may be called. According to 
one form, this man goes into a dark place—sometimes 
a hut entirely shut in by poles—and those who consult 
him are said to hear utterances, and, less frequently, 
to see living figures emerging which are different from 
his own. According to the other form, while visible 
to all, he seems to be taken possession of by some in¬ 
fluence that often makes him numb to physical sensa¬ 
tion, and that always makes him talk or act in a man¬ 
ner apparently foreign to his own character.* The 

*It is well known that, in our own time and country, there are conditions 
resembling this, into which certain persons fall, owing to their temperament or 
state of health, or to some hypnotic influence, as we may term it, consciously 
or unconsciously exerted upon them by others. In these conditions the body, 
while apparently put to sleep, seems to be made the direct instrument of the 
subconscious—either of the subject himself, according to the hypnotic theory, 
or of one obsessing it, if we accept the trance-theory. The result is that, while 
in this condition, these persons sometimes manifest a degree of mental culture 
and force of which in their conscious moods they give no indications. 

A telegram from San Francisco, published in most of the newspapers of 
January 21, 1897, contained the following: “A shock-headed boy of fifteen, 
whose school days have been limited to three short years, and whose life has 
been passed chiefly in a little country town in Washington, delivered a lecture 
here last night upon the ‘Different Religious Systems of the World, Now and in 
the Past.’ Charles Anderson is the boy’s name. He was born in Cowlitz 
County, in 1882, and lived there until two months ago. When lecturing, the 
boy’s language and manners seemed to belong to some gray-haired old patriarch, 
and many of his hearers pronounced the discourse a deep and learned disserta¬ 
tion. And yet his conversation reveals a woful lack of education and he can 
scarcely read. Charles says he has been able to produce his condition at will, 
and tho unable to foretell his subject, he is able to remember a little of his dis¬ 
course after the trance, but not enough to render him any more intelligent in 
his every-day life.” 

The author himself has heard from the lips of a woman, apparently in¬ 
capable even of understanding the subject discust, what was virtually—tho 
never purporting to be it, nor recognized to be it, so far as he knows, by any 
one but himself—the whole system of ancient Gnosticism, together with the 


88 THE PSYCITOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans seem to 
have given a ceremonial development to these primi¬ 
tive methods of receiving supposed spiritual com¬ 
munications. Most of the Egyptian temples contained 
rooms absolutely dark; and one of the Assyrian stances 
is probably described with accuracy in the account in 
the twenty-eighth chapter of 1 Samuel of the appear¬ 
ance of Samuel for Saul in the cave of the Witch of 
Endor. Many references are made by the classic 
writers to the mysteries, especially the Eleusinian, as 
solving questions with reference to the future. Were 

main propositions of the Platonic germ which this seems to have developed— 
all presented with a wealth of illustration, information, and eloquence which he 
does not hesitate to say that he has never heard equaled by any unpremedi¬ 
tated effort on the part of any mind working normally. That the whole dis¬ 
cussion was foreign to the woman’s natural ability, range of thought, and, ap¬ 
parently, belief, was proved by conversations with her when in her normal 
moods; and that what was said in the abnormal moods was unpremeditated was 
proved by frequent questions that guided the course of her presentation, in 
which never, on different occasions, was the same phraseology or method of il¬ 
lustration exactly repeated. However, what was said in this way—tho it was 
all upon an elevated plane—was not taken by the author for indisputable truth. 
Why not? Partly because it was impossible for any one to determine its source. 
It might have come from an hypnotic reading of that which was stored uncon¬ 
sciously in the mind of the investigator, tho this seemed improbable, inasmuch 
as analogous deliverances of the same general tenor were made in his absence, 
It might have come from that which was stored in the subconsciousness of the 
woman herself, tho this, too, seemed improbable, inasmuch as she would scarcely 
have been interested sufficiently in such lines of thought even to have read of 
them. It might have come from that which had been stored in the conscious 
or subconscious mentality of some of her ancestors, or of some living person at 
a distance, or even been subconsciously read from some book. Or it might 
have come, as the woman herself supposed, from some spirit; yet, even so, this 
spirit might have been—to say the least—insufficiently informed to warrant 
confidence in the truth of the things uttered. Only two satisfactory conclusions 
could be drawn from the circumstances. First, the same as that which will be 
argued on pages 162 to 168, namely, that whatever may be uttered in this super¬ 
normal way must be judged precisely as it would be if uttered in a normal way 
—that is, by its conformity to previous information, and to the results of in¬ 
tuitive insight and logical inference. The other conclusion reached was this: 
that here, presented to eyes and ears, in the nineteenth century, was something 
that legitimately suggested the origin not only of Platonism and Gnosticism, 


SACRED WRITINGS 


89 


they a continuation of the dark seances of the African 
woods and the Egyptian temples?—or were they a ritu¬ 
alistic or representative recalling of these? As for the 
actions in the open daylight of those supposed to be 
possest by a spirit, it is hardly necessary to point out 
that these must have been very similar to the actions 
of the Indian fakirs, and of the Mohammedan dervishes, 
while all of the methods indicated are apparently re¬ 
peated in modern spiritism. 

Now, let us notice another important fact. It is 
this: in the degree in which, among any adherents of 

a religion of this kind the intellect becomes developed, 

but of much of that imaginatively weird cosmogony which has ordinarily been 
attributed to merely the Oriental imagination, and even, too, the origin of 
Polytheism as developed among such civilized people as the ancient Egyptians 
Greeks, and Romans. These ancient people had minds as intellectual and 
logical as our own; and one may be sure that they had some good reasons for 
their beliefs. (See Pliny’s rational discussion of specters in his letter to Sura, 
B. 7; 27.) Almost all commentators agree that the words of Paul in Col. 2; 
18, “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and wor¬ 
shipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen,” refer to 
Gnosticism, and to angel-worship in it. Why, therefore, has not one come upon 
the original thing who—in connection with psychical phenomena and physical 
transformations which, if related, would not be credited by any one who had 
not seen something similar—has heard this system taught at regular intervals 
to people, some of them of decided intelligence, who believed themselves to be 
in the presence of a very superior spirit? Even supposing these people to have 
been completely deluded, why could not others, in similar circumstances, have 
been similarly deluded in ancient times? And if so, notice the inference not 
only with reference to Gnosticism but to Polytheism: how long would it have 
been before this superior spirit would have had followers; and after the “me¬ 
dium” through whom the utterances were received had passed away, how long 
would it have been before these followers would have conveyed to others, with 
all the suggestions with which imagination would naturally augment the original 
facts, a traditional belief in this spirit that had once talked to them? And 
what would a belief in this superior spirit and its teachings be but a belief in 
what the Greeks meant by the term god—not the Supreme Being, but a superior 
being, the existence of whom might or might not (from some of the literature of 
the Greeks we may judge that it did not) interfere with their acknowledging One 
supreme being? Does not this line of thought present a far more natural and justi¬ 
fiable theory through which to account for Polytheism than is usually advocated? 


90 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF 1NSPIRATIOK 


they come to pay less heed to mere physical phe¬ 
nomena— i.e., to abnormal sights and sounds, con¬ 
tortions of the body, mysterious rappings, or workings 
of “wonders”—than to verbal communications, some¬ 
times accompanying and sometimes not accompanying 
these, which communications, because verbal, appeal 
more exclusively to the intellect. Is not this exactly 
what we should expect? A man, according to the 
degree of his mental development, demands particulars. 
He is not satisfied with such general conceptions con¬ 
cerning the existence of life beyond the visible as alone 
can be suggested through physical phenomena. He 
craves to hear everything described in words. He de¬ 
sires to understand, and, for this reason, to have a 
religion that will appeal with the authority not only 
of subconscious but of conscious mentality—in fact, 
with the authority of the whole rational being. Ac¬ 
cordingly, in Greece and Rome we find religious truth 
attributed mainly to the utterances of oracles and 
Sibyls; and in India and Eastern Asia, as well as among 
the Hebrews, Mohammedans, and Christians, attributed 
to sacred writings. 

It must be borne in mind, however, that even these 
writings are generally supposed to involve an exercise 
of subconscious intellection. Their authors have been 
almost universally represented as subject to influences 
exerted through the subconscious mind in other ways. 
As we all know, this is claimed to have been true of 
many of the writers of the Christian Scriptures; and 


SACKED WRITINGS 


91 


not only of them, but of Mohammed and Joseph Smith; 
and it is Kant, the philosopher, who is authority for 
the trustworthiness of the same claim as made by 
Swedenborg, the latter, when in Denmark, having, ac¬ 
cording to Kant’s testimony, accurately described to 
him at the time of their occurrence, certain events— 
a fire, for instance—taking place in Stockholm.* So 
much as to the general connection between what are 
termed sacred writings and the other methods in which 
effects coming from or through subconscious agency 
manifest themselves. 

*A similar claim is made also by the essayist mentioned on page 72. It is 
said that, some years before the essays there described began to be written, this 
person, who had been for many years an invalid, felt one day a chill coming on t 
and, at the same moment, began to describe a supposed scene outside the win¬ 
dow—an Oriental pasture-ground and a shepherd who apparently took posses¬ 
sion of this person’s body, which, rendered perfectly rigid, fell to the floor. The 
attendant, instead of being allowed to tender assistance, was urged to take a 
pen and write as dictated. What was dictated w r as a prediction, which came 
true, that, from that hour, there should be no more sickness, and that, in time, 
something of practical importance to the world, which subsequent events have 
caused to be associated with these essays, should be revealed through the agency 
of the invalid. As, too, in the cases of Mohammed, Swedenborg, and Smith, 
this person does not assume to have been influenced to supplant Christianity, 
but merely to interpret and develop certain phases of it. The whole story, 
which reads like a leaf torn from a life of a Joan of Arc, the author himself has 
heard from the lips both of the person receiving these communications and—• 
unless in this one regard his memory fail him—of the person to whom the first 
communication was dictated. 



CHAPTER IY 


THE MIND’S CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CONSCIOUS INTELLEC¬ 
TION TO THAT WHICH IS RECEIVED THROUGH 
THE SUBCONSCIOUS 

Subconscious and Conscious Influences Manifested in All Forms of 
Intellection—Value of That Obtainable from the Former Depends 
on the Character of That Given by the Latter—Obligation of an 
Inspired Man to Interpret Promptings from the Subconscious by 
His Conscious Intellection—Fulfilment of This Obligation Charac¬ 
teristic of Writers—Consequent Intellectual Progress Connected 
with This Form of Inspired Communication — Recognizing Re¬ 
lationship of Christian to Other Forms of Inspiration Does Not 
Impair the Authenticity and Authority of the Christian Scrip¬ 
tures— Or Lessen One’s Veneration for Them—Nor Does the 
Acknowledgment That Signs and Wonders Are Wrought in Other 
Religions—The Testimony of the Christian Scriptures Upon This 
Subject—Rationality of the Scriptural Test as Applied to Spirit¬ 
ism—Hudson’s Theory—Importance of Investigating Spiritism— 
The Dangers Attendant Upon Accepting, Without Thinking, Its 
So-called Revelations Also Threaten Those Accepting, in the Same 
Way, Revelation in Any Other Form. 

As was indicated on page 56, the range of a man’s 
physical possibilities include results attributable both 
to subconscious and to conscious control; and it is 
logical to infer that the same is true of his mental pos¬ 
sibilities. In other words, it is logical to infer that 
some effects of both conscious and subconscious con¬ 
trol are to be found in everything that the mind does. 
In religion the thoughts and emotions which are first 
influenced may be supposed, for reasons already given, 
to be in the subconscious region, the results of which 


REVELATION AND RATIONALITY 


93 


dominate over results—which nevertheless, as we shall 
find hereafter, must interpret them—in the conscious 
region; whereas in science, the thoughts and emotions 
first influenced may be supposed to be in the conscious re¬ 
gion, the results of which dominate over results in the 
subconscious region. Let it be understood therefore that 
while, for theoretical purposes, we can separate subcon¬ 
scious from conscious mental action, this is not because 
conceptions in either religion or science are supposed 
to be determined by either kind of action exclusively. 

The exact truth seems to be that whatever is received 
through subconscious agency is liable to be more or 
less modified by thoughts and feelings in some conscious 
mind. This conscious mind may be either that of the 
person who is being influenced, or inspired, as we say, 
by or through his own subconscious intellection; or it 
may be the mind of another who, through the com¬ 
bined results of conscious and subconscious processes, 
may be supposed to be furnishing external suggestions 
to the inspired person. If the conscious mind be that 
of the inspired person himself, the quality and value 
of that to w r hich he is inspired will depend upon his 
own intellectual and spiritual attainments and charac¬ 
ter. Nothing seems to have been more clearly proved 
than the fact thus stated. In the degree in which a 
man becomes wise, the promptings of his conscience, 
for instance, which furnish one phase in which sub¬ 
intellection manifests itself, coincide with the deduc¬ 
tions of rational judgment and inference. Moreover 


94 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


—and this fact is interesting—in the degree in which 
there is this coincidence; i.e ., in the degree in which 
the effects of subconscious mentality are exactly paral¬ 
leled by those of conscious mentality—in this degree 
the mind itself becomes oblivious of any distinction 
between conscious and subconscious processes. It is 
a man not of high but of low intellectual and spiritual 
attainments who is constantly thinking and therefore 
talking about duty and conscience; that is to say, duty 
and conscience as such present their claims most strong¬ 
ly to the mind that is most strongly prompted to dis¬ 
regard them. The wise and good desire what is wise 
and good, and in pursuing them are hardly conscious 
that they have a conscience. So with the educated 
and refined as contrasted with their opposites. As a 
rule, only the comparatively uncultivated recognize a 
clear distinction between the results in their own minds 
of conscious and of subconscious intellection. In the 
degree in which a man’s mentality is of a high order, 
or has been highly developed, he ceases to talk in an 
insane, trancelike, or even absent-minded way. At 
every stage, he seems to hold in check and to direct 
the course of subconscious logic by considerations that 
are in conformity with fact and common sense. This 
is probably one reason why the ancient Hebrews were 
forbidden to consult with familiar spirits or necro¬ 
mancers (Deut. 18; 10, 11), as well as why it is said, in 
1 Cor. 14; 32, that “the spirits of the prophets are 
subject to the prophets.” 


THE SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL 95 


Here there seems to be the clearest kind of an intima¬ 
tion of an obligation on the part of even an inspired 
man to use his own conscious mental powers in order to 
preserve the balance between his instinctive subconscious 
promptings—which promptings may be sometimes sym¬ 
pathetic, sometimes conscientious, and sometimes bigot¬ 
ed —and the rational influences of his conscious nature. 
Otherwise, if he do not preserve this balance, he may 
become merely an enthusiast or fanatic, as intimated in 
these verses following the one just quoted: (33) “ For God 
is not the author of confusion but of peace.’’ (40) “Let 
all things be done decently and in order.” 

Now notice that to none are the spirits more likely 
to be subject than to a prophet who is a writer. 
For he, as a rule, is a thinker, and therefore a man who, 
however unconsciously his mind may work at times, 
is always more or less under the influence of sugges¬ 
tions from the conscious region, even if merely because 
he is always accustomed, before his words are com¬ 
mitted to script, to review and to correct them. This 
is true even when he is not completely aware that he 
is thus reviewing them. Perhaps it is not too much 
to say that no thoroughly cultivated man will ever, 
whatever may be the sources of his inspiration, allow 
his thoughts to leave him before they have been filtered 
through the clarifying criticism of his conscious mind. 
For this reason, sacred literature is more conformed to 
the rational results of mental action than is any other 
form of religious influence. 


9G THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


Is not this fact sufficient to explain the remarkable 
intellectual and spiritual progress which begins to 
characterize the people of all countries just as soon as 
they begin to hold the theory that religious truth can 
be wholly or chiefly communicated through sacred 
writings? A peculiarity of the Hebrew religion was a 
belief in the authority of a traditional written law; and 
the people were forbidden to consult familiar spirits 
(Deut. 18; 10, 11) or to hearken to diviners (Jer. 27; 9), 
who, but for these traditional Scriptures, would prob¬ 
ably have been the chief agents of religious instruction. 
The result of following the injunctions of a written law, 
rather than of leaders like these, was a cautious, re¬ 
flective, calculating habit of mind which two thousand 
centuries have not sufficed to eradicate from the char¬ 
acter of the race. The same characteristics have been 
developed, too, among Protestant Christian nations, 
causing them, in this regard, to present a sharp con¬ 
trast to the other Christian nations, with whom a 
written word is not so exclusively authoritative. A 
similar characteristic is evident also among the people 
of China and Japan, who are guided by the writings of 
Confucius, as contrasted with the inhabitants of Central 
Asia and of Africa, where sacred books have less in¬ 
fluence than have fakirs and other supposed religious 
wonder-workers. 

It is sometimes thought, especially in Christian com¬ 
munities, that any attempt to trace all the different 
results of inspiration, and, therefore, all possible forms 


REVELATION AND THE OCCULT 


97 


of revealed religion to or through exactly the same 
mediumship of occult mental action is practically the 
same as an attempt to lessen a belief in the authen¬ 
ticity and authority of the sacred writings of the 
Church, and thus to deprive the world of any trust¬ 
worthy standards of faith and practise. Let us con¬ 
sider, for a little, whether this opinion is justified. 
To begin with, is it not a fact that the vast majority 
of those who reject the teachings of the Bible do so be¬ 
cause at heart materialists? And are they not mate¬ 
rialists largely because they fail to recognize that there 
is any subconscious, or hidden, mental nature, or any 
consequent possibility of one’s being influenced from a 
spiritual or hidden source? Did they realize these 
facts, and, therefore, the fact that the method of re¬ 
ceiving truth represented in the Scriptures is not out of 
analogy with things that, with reasonable frequency, 
fall to the lot of human experience in other directions, 
might not the chief cause of their doubts be removed? 
And if this cause were removed, might not the accept¬ 
ance of the plausibility of the main proposition with 
reference to inspiration preserve for the theologian a 
large number of arguments otherwise not available; 
and with these might he not substantiate important 
subordinate propositions? 

But, says, perhaps, the objector, the view that has 
been presented implies that the mind acts according 
to the same method when coming into possession both 
of that which is religiously true, and of that which is 


98 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


religiously false; and this view tends to lessen the rel¬ 
ative esteem in which one should regard the former. 
At first thought, this inference is natural, perhaps, but 
will it stand the test of reflection? To say that, in 
both cases, the method of receiving the truth is the 
same is not to say that the truth itself is the same. 
Because we receive information about both cold stone 
and red-hot iron through the same sense of touch, it 
does not follow that the things felt are the same, or 
affect us similarly. To acknowledge that many differ¬ 
ent cases may involve a method of becoming acquainted 
with objective influences such as do not necessitate 
communication through one of the five physical senses, 
does not involve acknowledging the equal trustworthi¬ 
ness of all things communicated through the method. 
It does not involve ranking every mind-reader or 
“medium ” with the great prophets. To perceive 
partial analogies between the influence exerted by 
the former and by the latter does not involve giving a 
similar rating to all of them. But it does involve a 
recognition of the use, in all cases, of similar mental 
possibilities. It does involve this very logical con¬ 
clusion of common sense—that, only in the degree in 
which men realize that there is some method of in¬ 
fluencing them through an objective appeal of which 
they become conscious not from without but from 
within, can they realize that the kingdom of God— 
tho there may be much there besides this—is, as stated 
in Luke 17; 21, within them. 



SIGNS AND WONDERS 


99 


But this line of argument, the objector may say 
again, involves an admission that not only revealed 
words, but “signs and wonders 77 that accompany and 
attest the authority of these words, are common to all 
religions; and are not necessarily fraudulent in inferior 
religions. Yes; but is this admission dangerous? Is 
it not more dangerous to hold an opposite theory? 
Would you have people accept as true what a man 
says merely because he works what seem to be mir¬ 
acles? Magicians, hypnotizers, mind-reaclers, clairvoy¬ 
ants, fortune-tellers, all do this, and some of them who 
can tell with remarkable accuracy numbers of things 
that one has done in the past, as well as what is going 
on at a distance, frequently make statements that are 
utterly untrustworthy wdien referring to the most or¬ 
dinary occurrences. What would be the result if the 
words of such were taken for the eternal, the infinite, 

and the absolute truth? Manv of us refuse to follow 

%/ 

the ecclesiastical guidance of Joseph Smith, the founder 
of the Mormon faith. Yet much of his influence is at¬ 
tributable to the fact that he was a successful reader 
of experience, character, and thought through a 11 peep- 
stone/ 7 as it was termed. Which theory would con¬ 
ventional Christians have had a right to consider the 
more dangerous to the regions visited by him—that 
which denies the existence of a method of mental action 
like his unless one is divinely inspired, or that which 
admits its existence even where there is no divine in¬ 
spiration? 


100 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOK 


It seems as if here, at least, the writers of the Bible 
were right. They did not deny that the Witch of En- 
dor (1 Sam. 28; 7-25) or Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8; 
9-11) could produce genuinely supernormal results. 
They admitted that the wise men of Egypt “did in like 
manner with their enchantments ” to Moses (Ex. 7; 11). 
But truth was not therefore attributed to the utterances 
of such characters. There was a clear intimation that, 
tho “signs and wonders” may legitimately call atten¬ 
tion to a religious leader, there are better ways through 
which to assure oneself of the truth of his utterances. 
“Blessed are they,” said Jesus, “that hear the word 
of God, and keep it. An evil generation . . . seek a 
sign” (Luke 11; 28, 29). “Believe not every spirit,” 
even tho it be a spirit, said John, “but try the spirits 
whether they are of God” (1 John 4; 1). 

On the whole, is not this that the Apostle John en¬ 
joins a sensible thing to do; and a sensible principle 
upon which to act when doing it? Does it not afford 
the best “working plan” to recommend to those who 
seem in danger of allowing credulity or superstition to 
overbalance their judgment? If we seek to influence 
them by telling them that they are dupes or con- 
sorters with evil spirits, we may merely repel them. 
If not angry with us, they may, at least, lose confi¬ 
dence in our opinions. But in the degree in which we 
succeed in getting them to try the supposed spirits we 
may hope, in case they be deceived, to have them dis¬ 
cover the fact. It is not the man of open mind—the 


MEDIUMS 


101 


man who is willing frankly and fairly to try a new 
thing, and think it over before passing judgment on it 
*—who is in danger of becoming a victim to false no¬ 
tions. It is the man of closed mind, who is willing to 
think about nothing. To him alone does one swallow, 
no matter what the season, make a summer; and one 
psychic phenomenon—no matter how orthodox he has 
been before—prove the presence of a true prophet. 
No wonder his friends try to keep him away from 
“mediums.” If these know one thing that he fails to 
understand, or to have learned, he may imagine that 
they know all things. Of course, they do not, and 
can not; and what they do know, or can know, they 
frequently fail to report correctly. The record of the 
police courts of every large city reveal that many a 
“professional” fortune-teller, clairvoyant, or medium 
is merely a paid agent, leading the credulous into 
speculation, and even, occasionally, into vice. The 
slight facility in mind-reading which enables him to 
give his visitors’ names and vaguely tell half a dozen 
incidents of their past lives is supposed to guarantee 
infallible wisdom of advice with reference to buying 
stock in some mine that has no value, or to seeking 
employment in some house in which virtue is by no 
means its own reward. Even a “ professional” who 
intends no harm may be indolent or self-indulgent, or, 
at least, loath, for a few dimes, to undergo the nervous 
exhaustion frequently incident upon a genuine prac¬ 
tise of his “gift.” The author himself, upon placing 



102 THE PS Y CIIO LOGY OF INS PIP A TI ON 

his hand on the heart of one man when in this abnormal 
state, found it beating at the rate of almost two hun¬ 
dred strokes a minute. No wonder if the “ medium ” 
thus affected preferred ordinarily, as was said of him, 
to practise sleight of hand, accompanied by tales con¬ 
jured from his own normal imagination. Other “me¬ 
diums,” again, who have no wish to deceive, are so 
constituted, sympathetically, that the very hypnotic 
susceptibility enabling them to give reports from the 
subconscious, forces them to report, more than any¬ 
thing else, that which is in the thought and wish of 
their visitor. Others still—and this is a very frequent 
result—with the most honest intentions, seem unable 
to distinguish what subconscious intellection, supposed 
to be sent on its journey, sees or hears from what 
consciousness imagines it possible to see or hear. Of 
course, to follow implicitly the advice of either of these 
last two classes would be about as wise as to follow 
that of an insane person. Finally, there are others 
who, tho they seem to be able to distinguish the mental 
action that is subconscious, mistake its significance, 
and, as in the case mentioned on page 66, give advice 
that is erroneous. 

Thomas J. Hudson, in his “Laws of Psychic Phenom¬ 
ena,” attributes all occult communications to subcon¬ 
scious mentality, acting either independently or as 
influenced bv the conscious or unconscious thoughts 
or feelings of others. Modern spiritists do not believe 
that this theory can account for all the facts. Owing 


MEDIUMS 


103 


to communications apparently received from some per¬ 
son who has passed away, and who only, as is alleged, 
could know of occurrences that are mentioned, they 
attribute many of the phenomena of which we have 
been speaking to the influence of spirits. But sup¬ 
pose that one accept this theory—what then? Does 
it change, in the least, the conditions pointed out in 
the last paragraph? May not communications coming 
through a genuine medium be just as untrustworthy 
as they would be if coming through one whose “gift” 
was owing to some phase of what is termed mere hyp¬ 
notism? Are not many statements that are made by 
mediums untrue? Are not many of their prophecies 
never fulfilled? Is not much of their advice mislead¬ 
ing? Suppose that a medium have every personal 
trait necessary to genuineness, honesty, and an intel¬ 
ligent interpretation of communications. May not, 
now and then, some deceitful spirit indite them? 
What indisputable proof can we find that they are 
indited by that lost friend of ours, say our mother, or 
by that famous warrior, say Napoleon, or by that re¬ 
ligious man, say Beecher, whom the spirit purports to 
be? Now add one more consideration, which is that 
in the vast majority of cases predictions given in this 
way that are afterward fulfilled attract, when first 
heard, little attention, and are brought to an issue, 
as in the cases mentioned on pages 69 and 91, without 
any directing effort on the part of the one receiving 
them; and does not the value of such advice for com- 


104 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


mercial or any materially practical purposes appear 
exceedingly slight? And do not the dangers of fol¬ 
lowing the advice appear correspondingly great? 

We should not overlook the fact, however, that this 
whole subject, considered theoretically or theologic¬ 
ally, is in itself of great importance. What can be 
more important than that which concerns the appre¬ 
hension of the possibilities, mental or spiritual, of the 
subconscious processes of mind—of their capabilities 
of receiving and giving impressions, wdiether before 
death or after it? On the whole, therefore, notwith¬ 
standing the dangers, this importance justifies philo¬ 
sophic and scientific investigation. Nor, in refutation 
of this view, is it sufficient to quote the old Hebrew 
laws against witchcraft and sorcery, as in Deut. 18; 10, 
11. These laws, much as they may have been needed 
in order to uphold, in an unscientific age, the authority 
of a theocracy governed by a priesthood, can not be 
proved to be applicable to the same extent in our own 
age and circumstances; and if they could be proved to 
be so, a strong argument could be framed to show that 
they do not apply to an investigating attitude of mind, 
but to the opposite of this—to an attitude of mind 
in which, waiving the exercise of his own judgment 
and reason, a man is looking to the occult for that 
which can take the place of them. We may be sure 
that, in this world, nothing can ever rightly do this— 
a statement that is equally applicable whether one be 
seeking to solve the petty problems of material life or 



REASON MUST TEST REVELA TION 105 

the profounder ones of spiritual life. Every circum¬ 
stance connected with the formation or development 
of character proves that our own minds are given us 
to be used by ourselves. Nor should we expect any 
worthy gain in life, individual or collective, from a 
course in which any other agency is allowed to inter¬ 
fere with our using them to the utmost degree that is 
possible. 

The trustworthiness of this view will be confirmed 
upon our recalling that the misunderstandings and 
errors incident to the form of psychic communications 
just considered are not peculiar to it, but are likely to 
occur in connection with any similarly occult method 
of influencing thought and emotion. Of course, the 
communications considered inspired in Christianity dif¬ 
fer greatly from those in spiritism. The former are 
handed down the ages in written records, and, because 
these require more intelligence on the part of the com¬ 
municators than does any other form of communica¬ 
tion, we may suppose their results to be more intel¬ 
ligent. At the same time, as stated in the Introduction 
to this volume, all forms of inspired communica¬ 
tion, even those in sacred books, can be proved histor¬ 
ically to involve more or less ambiguity and tendency 
to misapprehension. Nor is this fact, as applied even 
to the Christian Scriptures, without its dangers. How 
many times and for how many centuries has the right 
to be educated, to think for oneself, and to follow the 
dictates of one’s own conscience been denied, and the 


106 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


right to enforce acceptance of officials and dogmas 
through exercise of extreme cruelty and persecution 
been affirmed!—all in supposed fulfilment of injunc¬ 
tions, or examples of the proper methods of obeying 
injunctions, given in the Bible! No candid mind, 
considering the subject fully, can fail to admit that the 
errors incident upon following, without exercising ra¬ 
tional discrimination, the dictation of a spirit-medium 
are also incident—tho more subtly, perhaps, and to a 
far less degree—upon following, without exercising 
the same, the dictations of the Christian Scriptures. 
In these errors attendant upon not interpreting the 
Scriptures rightly we have a reason for the careful 
study of the nature of revelation in addition to the 
reason mentioned in our Introduction, which con¬ 
cerned their being discredited by thoughtful minds on 
account of their apparent inaccuracies. 



CHAPTER V 


THE NECESSARILY SUGGESTIVE CHARACTER OF INSPIRED 

OR REVEALED TRUTH 

Ambiguity and Indefiniteness Seem Characteristic of the Communica¬ 
tions Received Through Inspiration and Revelation—The Method 
of Action of the Inner Sphere of the Mind May Render This Result 
Necessary—We Can Study This Method Through the Analogous 
Methods of Hypnotism—Limitations of This Study—Hypnotism 
Influences Through Suggestion, Which Leaves Expression Free 
and, When Influencing Different Minds, Different—The Bearing 
of This Argument — Analogies from Hypnotism May Explain 
Many Things Assigned to Spiritual Influence in the Scriptures— 
This Is so of Conversion—Of Atonement, of Spiritual Unity, of 
Creation, of Probation, of Life After Death—Suggestive Revelation 
May Be More Influential Than Dictatorial—Additional Evidence 
of This—Suggestive Control in Religion Conforms to Divine Con¬ 
trol as Manifested in External Nature—Suggestive Nature of 
Revealed Truth Already Widely Acknowledged by Christians— 
This Acknowledgment Not Antagonistic to Continued Study of 
the Scriptures—Illustration of the Way in Which the Same In¬ 
spired Truth May Be Exprest in Different Forms — Different 
Legends in Different Religions May Give Expression to the 
Same Fundamental Truth—Influence of This Fact Upon Future 
Theologians. 

That which has been unfolded in the chapters pre¬ 
ceding this has sufficed, it is hoped, to make clear that, 
in all religions there is more or less acknowledgment 
of the existence of an occult method of influencing the 
mind irrespective of the ordinary methods of communi¬ 
cating with it through one of the five senses. In con¬ 
nection with the acknowledgment of this method, 

let us now recall what was said in the Introduction 

m 


108 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


with reference to the acknowledgment of an effect of 
ambiguity and indefiniteness produced when the sub¬ 
ject of the occult influence endeavors to describe or 
to explain his experiences to others. Even those in¬ 
clined to deny in words this ambiguity and indefinite¬ 
ness are obliged to confess them in their deeds, or they 
would not admit to their libraries so many books that 
interpret differently the same passages in the same 
sacred writings. Such books prove, beyond question, 
a condition that exists, and exists, so far as one can 
judge, universally. But can it be said that this con¬ 
dition should exist, and this by necessity ? If the latter 
could be proved, it would do more than anything yet 
advanced in this argument to explain the conditions, 
as well as to reconcile our minds to those features of 
them, which, according to what was said on page 7 
of the Introduction, seem inconsistent with what may 
reverently be termed the obligations of Omniscience. 

So far we have considered the subject before us, as it 
were, indirectly and from the outside, judging of the 
methods of impressing and expressing influence exerted 
upon the inner sphere of the mind from the results—• 
i.e., from what men so influenced say or do. But are 
we sure that these results in expression are traceable 
to such impressions as those to which we have assigned 
them? Of course, we think so; but are we sure of it; 
and, if not, is there any way of becoming sure of it? 
Is there any way in which, in accordance with the 
strictest scientific requirements, we can show how 


SCIENTIFIC HYPNOTISM 


109 


the inner mind is influenced and how it expresses 
the results of this influence? Is there any way in 
which one can do for the subject before us something 
akin to that which is done by the philosopher when, 
from metaphysics, which has enabled him to surmise 
the methods of the mind’s action, he turns to physics, 
and laying bare, as it were, the nerves of the brain, 
unravels their tangled skein, and seeks for accurate 
knowledge according to the methods of physiological 
psychology ? 

Yes, there is a way of so studying the subject. There 
is a way, not only of surmising, but of knowing as a 
fact, that the inner processes of mind can be influenced 
immediately, and not, as through the senses, mediately; 
and of knowing also that, when thus influenced, they 
invariably not only do but must express the results of 
this influence ambiguously, indefinitely, inaccurately, 
and, at times, to all appearance, conflictingly. And 
this way is one the truth of which can be demonstrated 
scientifically. It is found in hypnotism—not hypo¬ 
thetical hypnotism to which have been assigned all 
sorts of unproved phenomena such as are used to sus¬ 
tain the claims of extreme spiritists, but scientific hyp¬ 
notism, the phenomena of which, and the methods of 
producing which, can be studied by all, and the laws 
of which are acknowledged by all who have studied 
the subject intelligently. The facts acknowledged are 
these. A scientific hypnotizer, when once he has his 
subjects under control, can influence their thoughts 


110 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

and feelings irrespective of that which, at the same 
time, their senses perceive in the real world. Not¬ 
withstanding what they actually see, hear, or expe¬ 
rience in other wavs, he can make them believe that 
they see, hear, or experience something else; and he 
can also make them give expression in words and deeds 
to what they think and feel with reference to this 
something else. Such a hypnotizer does not purport 
to be acting under the control of a spirit— i.e., to be in¬ 
spired to do something of the methods and results of 
which he himself may remain unconscious. He claims 
to be, and every one who has examined into the nature 
of the influence that he exerts recognizes him to be, 
acting as a rational man, fully conscious of his own 
methods, and capable of reporting authoritatively what 
results from them. He can know, therefore, and can 
explain to us, the character of the influence which he 
exerts over the inner mental processes, and just the 
degree of accuracy with which those whom he has 
hypnotized give expression to that which they have 
received from him. Accordingly, unless the mind 
when influenced in other ways than through the eyes 
and ears, acts differently in different cases—which 
we can not logically infer—the method in which the 
hypnotizer influences this may be supposed to follow 
the analogy of the method in which a spirit—of what¬ 
ever rank or power—influences it. 

Not, of course, that hypnotism, or anything else, can 
explain everything that we might like to know about 


THE SPIRITUAL SUBJECT TO LAW 111 

the method. Nothing in this world ever explains 
everything. What is important for us, in the present 
case, is that we should recognize the fact of the ex¬ 
istence of the method and of its expressional results. 
This is really about all that we can know of any method 
that we term natural. When we have learned that a 
certain plant grows in a certain place, in a certain way, 
developing into certain limbs, leaves, flowers, or ber¬ 
ries that produce a certain effect, we have about 
reached the possible limits of human knowledge with 
reference to the plant. When one asks why it grows 
as it does, we can do no more than refer the cause to 
its own nature. So when any one asks why the mind, 
when influenced irrespective of ordinary effects com¬ 
municated through the eyes or ears, expresses itself 
as it does, we can do no more than refer the cause of 
this to its own nature. But, notwithstanding the 
limits of our information, when we have really found 
out what this nature causes the mind to do, just as 
when we have found out what the nature of the various 
plants about us causes them to do, we have found out 
what is of immense practical value both to thought and 
to life. Moreover as, in the nature of things—to go 
back to the same reason—the Creative Power can not 
be expected to change the characteristics once given 
the plant, even tho, when ignorantly used for food, it 
may prove deleterious to the body, so the same Power 
can not be expected to change the characteristics once 
given the inner sphere of the mind, even tho, when 


112 TIIE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


ignorantly consulted for spiritual guidance, it may 
prove deleterious to the spirit. As rational beings, 
what we have to do is to study and to learn the nature 
of mind, as of other things which experience presents 
to us, and then to think and to act in accordance with 
our knowledge. 

It seems as if such considerations as these should 
cause every philosophic theologian to study carefully 
the methods of hypnotism. What are the chief of 
these?—The preliminary effect, as most of us know, is 
a deadening of the outer consciousness. This is pro¬ 
duced in different ways. Sometimes passes with the 
hands are made in front of the patient’s eyes; some¬ 
times his attention is fixt steadily on a revolving disk, 
or upon a stationary object; and sometimes merely a 
command is given. For our purposes, the preliminary 
methods of inducing the state are immaterial. What 
concerns us is the method of exerting influence over 
thoughts and feelings after the state has been induced. 
What is the method? Hypnotists agree in declaring 
it to be the method of suggestion. The patient is 
made to have some general conception. He is told, 
for instance, that he is a fisherman or a fish, a soldier 
like Napoleon or a President like Garfield, a Demo¬ 
cratic stump-speaker or a Republican office-holder. 
Then he is allowed to develop the suggestion in his own 
way. It is usually asserted, too, that, when once the 
suggestion has been given, whether based upon what 
is true or false, all the processes of memory or logic 


HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION 


113 


which are started in the patient’s mind are developed 
with flawless consistency. At least, the inhibitions 
and checks which seem inevitably to introduce into the 
processes of conscious logic more or less of that which 
is irrelevant, are removed. When, for instance, a 
patient is told that he is George Washington, or is 
given a logical problem to solve, or is made to impro¬ 
vise an oration upon some subject, or attributed to 
some public man whose opinions are well known, the 
result seems never to fail. It is like that which might 
come from a perfectly constructed automatic machine. 
Just here, however, in order to avoid a misapprehension 
that might arise, it is important to notice that if, in 
such a state, a patient be asked to repeat deeds that 
he has seen, or words that he has heard, he will usually 
do this with marvelous accuracy; but, in connection 
with this fact, it is still more important to notice that 
such cases of repetition afford no argument from 
analogy which can be applied to inspiration, for the 
reason that in them the patient is presumably limited to 
what has affected his mind through the outer senses of 
seeing and hearing, whereas in inspiration the inner 
mind is presumably influenced mainly by effects not 
produced through the outer senses. In this place, 
therefore, we are called upon to consider such cases only 
as do not involve a mere quickening of the normal 
memory with reference to things actually seen or heard. 
With reference to all these cases, it can be said that 
the deeds and words through which the patient repre- 


114 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 

sents that which has been suggested are often wholly 
unexpected by the one who has hypnotized him. In¬ 
deed, the methods through which two or more patients 
represent the same suggestion are never exactly the 
same. They can not be, for one reason, because they 
depend to such an extent upon what previous ex¬ 
perience has stored in each one’s memory. Besides 
this, no two persons, probably, are fitted by nature to 
render their representations equally intelligible. Dif¬ 
ferent patients, therefore, frequently give expression to 
the same suggestion in very different ways. Never¬ 
theless, the general effect produced upon the methods 
of expression of all the patients under the influence of 
any one suggestion at any one time is the same—a 
statement which, using terms in a broad way, could be 
paralleled by saying that the representations, tho dif¬ 
fering in form, are all alike in spirit. 

Before going on to illustrate and amplify what has 
been said let us try to bring clearly before our minds 
the reason why it is important to illustrate and amplify 
them. Let us notice the bearing of them upon our gen¬ 
eral subject. This may be briefly stated as follows: 
if suggestion be the method through which, irrespect¬ 
ive of any form of communication made through the 
senses, the inner or subconscious processes of mind are 
influenced in such cases as are susceptible of full exam¬ 
ination, it is logical to conclude that the same may be 
the method through which these processes are influ¬ 
enced in cases not susceptible of full examination. 



HYPNOTISM AND INSPIRATION 


115 


There may be and must be different characteristics in 
the sources of this influence and different degrees in 
which it exerts its control, and therefore there must 
be differences in the character of the expression and in 
the accuracy with which it represents the effects of the 
control; but until the human mind is changed so as to 
become what all known facts prove it not to be, we 
have no rational right to infer that any quality or 
quantity of such control can make the influence which 
is exerted anything but suggestive, or the expression of 
the effects of the influence anything but that which is 
natural to the expression of suggestion. 

Just at this point it is not unlikely that some reader 
will be inclined to follow this line of thought no further. 
To compare the highest inspiration to anything re¬ 
sembling an effect accompanying hypnotism, or revela¬ 
tion to anything in the least resembling an hypnotic sug¬ 
gestion, may seem to involve suppositions which a due 
regard for the dictates of reverence or conscience should 
not tolerate. But let him pause and consider the sub¬ 
ject for a moment just as it is presented. Not the 
slightest intimation has been given that the influences 
produced by a man in hypnotism are presumed to be 
on a level with those produced by the Supreme Spirit 
in inspiration. It has been supposed merely that the 
two may be produced by a similar method because 
affecting a similar inner sphere of the mind. Thus 
understood, what is here to be said may afford illustra¬ 
tions by way of analogy which may prove exceedingly 


116 THE PSYCPIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


helpful, inasmuch as they may make certain claims of 
religion appear more in conformity than they some¬ 
times do to accepted laws of nature and of reason. 
For instance, Mr. Thomas Jay Hudson in “The Law 
of Psychic Phenomena’ 7 maintains that the result of 
suggestion exerted upon subconscious mental action in 
hypnotism is in exact accord with that produced by 
the central doctrine of Christianity, namely, salvation 
through faith. When a patient is told “You are 
Abraham Lincoln,” it is through exercising a form of 
faith that he voluntary yields his own will, believes the 
words that are told him, and becomes, to his own con¬ 
ception, what the hypnotizer suggests. Yet the hyp- 
notizer suggests this in only a very general way, and 
watches, with as much interest as any one else, to see 
what will be the result of his subject’s conception of 
Mr. Lincoln’s character. In like manner, according 
to the Christian theory, when the Christ told men that 
they were sons of God they became these by believing 
in him and in his words, and voluntarily yielding their 
wills to him; but at the same time he merely suggested 
a conception which they were left free to carry out in 
their own ways. He did not for either individuals or 
communities dictate actions or formulate creeds. His 
followers were “called unto liberty” (Gal. 5; 13). 
Again, if one wonder how faith can permanently change 
character, even ordinary hypnotism, which is not a 
divine but merely a human agency subordinating con¬ 
sciousness in such ways as to allow the subconscious 


SUGGESTION AS REMEDIAL 117 

to be influenced directly, may throw some light upon 
this subject. 

Observe the following from an article by Dr. R. Os¬ 
good Mason on “ The Educational Uses of Hypnotism,” 
from the North American Review for October, 1896. 
“In the summer of 1884,” he says, “there was at the 
Salpetriere, a young woman of a deplorable type—a 
criminal lunatic, filthy in habits and violent in de¬ 
meanor, and with a lifelong history of impurity and 
theft. M. Auguste Voisin, one of the physicians of the 
hospital staff, undertook to hypnotize her at a time 
when she could be kept quiet only by the strait- 
jacket and the continuous douche to the head. She 
would not look at the operator, but raved and spat upon 
him. M. Voisin, however, kept his face close to hers, 
and followed her eyes wherever she moved them. In 
ten minutes she was asleep, and in five minutes more 
she passed into the sleep-walking or somnambulistic 
state, and began to talk incoherently. This treatment 
being repeated on many successive days, she gradually 
became sane when in the hypnotic condition, tho she 
still raved when awake. At length she came to obey in 
her waking hours commands imprest upon her in her 
trance—trivial matters, such as to sweep her room— 
then suggestions involving marked changes in her be¬ 
havior; finally, in the hypnotic state, she voluntarily 
exprest regret for her past life, and, of her own accord, 
made good resolutions for the future, which she carried 
out when awake, and the improvement in her conduct 



118 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

was permanent. Two years later M. Voisin wrote that 
she was a nurse in a Paris hospital, and that her con¬ 
duct was irreproachable.” 

There are several other of the accredited results of 
religious influence that a recognition of these analogies 
between it and hypnotic influence may render more 
conceivable. Take, for instance, the effects supposed 
to be produced by the incarnation and atonement of 
Jesus. As a rule, even such a degree of confidence as 
must antedate the influence of a hypnotizer must de¬ 
pend upon his subject’s belief not only in his ability, 
but in his good-will and kindly interest. But what can 
afford the highest evidence of these?—what but love? 
And how does love manifest itself? In this world it is 
simply a universal law that love, from that of a friend 
to that of a mother, manifests itself in self-sacrifice, and 
the degree of it in the degree of self-sacrifice. “ Greater 
love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his 
life for his friend” (John 15; 13). Notice again the 
conception of the spiritual unity of the Christ with God, 
as well as the associated conception of which the Church, 
with its literalism (when applied exclusively, as all 
literalism must be, to only a single application of the 
general principle involved), is in danger of losing sight 
—the conception of the spiritual unity of all believers 
with God, the conception exprest in the prayer of Jesus, 
in John 17; 21: “That they all may be one; as thou, 
Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be 
one in us.” Can anything in human experience cause 


HYPNOTIC AND RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 119 


us to conceive of the possibility of spiritual unity exist¬ 
ing at the same time with separate personality, as well 
as an understanding of the ascertained fact that a 
hypnotizer can actually control the mind of his patient, 
and yet, as in the case in which he tells him that he is 
Abraham Lincoln, can allow him virtual freedom of 
both thought and action; allow him, that is, to develop 
his own conception of Mr. Lincoln's character?* Again, 
take the statement in the opening of the Bible, that the 
world was created in six days, and the corresponding 
statements in Is. 34; 4, and Rev. 6; 14, that the heavens 
shall finally be rolled together as a scroll. It may be 
said with truth that there is only one possible explana¬ 
tion in accordance with which such statements can be 
shown to be analogous to anything supposable in human 
experience. A hypnotizer can make a dozen or more 
men all agree in conceiving of themselves as being in a 
place wholly different from that in which they were a 
moment before. What is to prevent millions of think¬ 
ing creatures from being made to perceive a world 
created out of nothing, and kept believing in it for 
generations and then being made as suddenly to see this 

♦The fact that a subject, tho hypnotized and thus caused mentally to de¬ 
velop a false premise (see page 148), nevertheless usually continues to give ex¬ 
pression to his own idiosyncrasies—a man, for instance, to manifest his sense of 
dignity, and a woman her sense of modesty—is important. It shows not only 
the groundlessness of much of the fiction which ascribes the commission of crime 
to hypnotic influence, but also a reason for supposing that the agent of expres¬ 
sion, however elsewise influenced, is, in the last analysis, the subconscious self, 
and so for supposing also, as far as the conditions throw light upon life as it will 
be when wholly free from the body, that selfhood, individuality of character, 
will continue in the future stair. 


120 THE PSYCI1OLOGY OF INSPIRATIOY 


world disappear? Nothing except a lack in the uni¬ 
verse of power able to exert the same kind of influence 
on all minds that is now exerted on a few minds. 
Similar considerations may show us why it is rational 
to suppose that the future life of the individual should be 
wholly determined by his present life, not only spiri¬ 
tually considered but intellectually. In the results of 
hypnotism, we have a picture of what the mind does 
when its own physical powers are not dominant over 
it. What does it do? It goes on developing the 
premise last or, at least, most strikingly presented to it. 
It perceives in itself and in its visible surroundings 
whatever the hypnotizer suggests as being there. It 
experiences the literal, as well as poetic, truth of what 
Milton says: 

The mind is its own place, and in itself 

Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. 

Paradise Lost, 1. 

Let the suggestion embody a belief in the Fatherhood 
of God and the brotherhood of souls—what could pre¬ 
vent the mind’s continuing, after being freed from the 
body, to live on forever in the same belief? “To-day,” 
said Jesus to the penitent thief upon the cross—“ to-day 
shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23; 43). 
Who shall say that it is not strictly in accordance with 
the laws of this world as well as of the next that this 
promise should be fulfilled? Again, the inner processes 
of thought, when not outwardly checked, develop, as 
has been said, with complete recollective, logical, and 


SUGGESTIVE INFLUENCE EFFECTIVE 121 

illustrative consistency that which previous experience 
has stored. Now so far as what is thus developed has 
its germs in previous experience, so far is it not logical 
to conclude that spiritual life in the next world must 
continue to unfold from ideals formed in this world? 
and if so, have we not a provision for eternal limitation? 
But if, at the same time, the mind through memory, 
logic, and imagination can develop its stores in ways 
practically infinite, then, in connection with limitation, 
have we not also a provision for infinite expansion? 
And if we can answer such questions in the affirmative, 
can we not perceive more clearly than otherwise one 
reason why life in this world should be one of probation 
and acquirement, but in the next world one of fruition 
and rest? Besides this, if minds be able to have occult 
intercourse with one another, what is to prevent the 
discoveries, inventions, and conceptions of every age, 
w T hich must necessarily, perhaps, be confined to a 
material plane, from being a help to those who have 
gone before, and who are now upon a spiritual plane? 
If nothing can prevent this, then we may understand 
why a patriarch of old should expect to be blest owing 
to the character and achievements of his descendants, 
and why the presence of a cloud of witnesses on high 
(Heb. 12; 1) should be used as an inducement to one 
who cares little for anything except the opportunity of 
helping others. 

So much for certain analogies between the suggestive 
influence accompanying hypnotism and that which 


122 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


in religion is termed inspiration. But what, it may be 
asked, about the analogies between the results of sug¬ 
gestion and the results of inspiration which are termed 
revelations? Is not the attempt to prove that the 
statements of a religious leader or writer should be con¬ 
sidered suggestive, rather than dictatorial, equivalent 
to an attempt to lessen a man’s regard for the authority 
of the source from which the statements come, and to 
diminish their influence upon him? It undoubtedly 
is equivalent to this as applied to the letter or form of 
the statements, but not as applied to the spirit of them; 
not as applied to the general subject-matter or the 
principle to which the statements give expression. 
Nor does the conception that the general subject-matter, 
or the principle involved, is exprcst suggestively tend 
to weaken such effects as this is fitted to exert upon the 
minds to which it is addrest. If we be told that a father 
trains his son not through the use of explicit, dictatorial 
injunctions, but by way of suggestion, we do not neces¬ 
sarily infer that he has less authority or influence with 
his son than have other parents who use the other 
method. We are often inclined to think the contrary. 
Any parents with superior physical strength who dic¬ 
tate what their boy shall do, will be obeyed as long as 
they are in sight. But this method will not always 
cause the boy to obey them when they are not in sight. 
Nothing but regard and love for his parents will make 
him do this. Regard and love are occasioned by mani¬ 
festations of wisdom and sympathy; and these traits, 


THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT 


123 


in the treatment of a child are never manifested as 
fully as by the parent who governs through suggestion. 
It is in the degree in which they are manifested that 
his children acquire and incorporate as habits in their 
characters his own methods of thinking and acting. 
Why should not the same principle apply to the meth¬ 
ods in which the heavenly Father deals with his children? 

There are other reasons, too, why spiritual influence 
should be supposed to be exerted in the suggestive way 
that has been indicated. In what way except through 
the endeavor to understand suggestions, and to embody 
them in definite mental and material forms, can spiri¬ 
tual life develop? Even by divinity itself could it be 
developed according to any other method? A fully 
formulated, dictatorial control relieves a man of the 
necessity of thinking. A suggestive control obliges him 
to think. Oblige him to do this, where both he and 
others have liberty, and no matter how unwisely he 
may, at first, carry out suggestions, a right tendency 
thus started will ultimately attain righteousness; a 
little leaven, after a time, after many generations, 
perhaps, will finally leaven the whole lump. It is 
probably because of a recognition of this principle that 
the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 3; 6, speaks of himself and 
his fellow workers as being “ministers of the new testa¬ 
ment; not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter 
killeth, but the spirit giveth life.’' This statement, 
the history of the world has proved to be true. As a 
fact, the letter has killed. It has done this both be- 


124 THE PSYCHOL OGY OF INSPIRA TION 


cause the theory of literalism, so conscientiously ad¬ 
vocated, has been the death of any form of belief in 
the Scriptures on the part of large numbers who— 
debarred from a theory which might explain—could 
not fully ignore what to them have seemed to be dis¬ 
crepancies ; and also because the truth, when considered 
only in itself, so far as it has been supposed to be iden¬ 
tical with a form or a formula (see page 38) has failed to 
stimulate to activity, and so to spiritual life. To-day, as 
in the days of Adam and Eve, knowledge of good and 
evil, so far as it is accompanied by a desire for nothing 
beyond this, tends to spiritual death. The curse of 
bigotry and priestcraft lies not alone in the fact that by 
false forms and traditions they make void the truth, but 
that they make it void by true forms and traditions so 
far as they exalt these to undue importance; so far as 
they point to effects logical to thought or attractive to 
the eye, and say “Know these, or do these, and thou 
shalt live.” If the Church be paradise on earth, this 
latter Eden may have its tempter as surely as the former 
one. When a man is told that he can attain all that 
mind or soul can need through accepting some dogma, 
performing some ceremony, undertaking some service, 
what can be the result but to counteract the tendency 
to faith in that which is unseen? On earth the soul 
should walk by faith, because this leaves all about one 
an infinite margin that stimulates desire; and only 
through desire for surer, purer, better things can intel¬ 
lect be developed or spirit sanctified. 


DIVINE INFLUENCE SUGGESTIVE 125 

Such a view of divine influence as thus exerted in the 
invisible realm is the only one in harmony with the same 
as exerted in visible nature. This gives a brook rocks 
to rise above and ledges to dash upon, that, through 
their agency its volume and future speed may be in¬ 
creased. So, also, nature gives a man personal foes to 
rise above, and financial woes to dash upon, that, 
through their agency his wisdom and future energy 
may be increased. Amid material obstacles, the man 
who tries to save his life by flying from the conflicts 
granted to experience may lose it; but the man who 
pushes forward, tho he lose his life, may find it. Amid 
spiritual obstacles, the soul that has the faith to move 
is vivified with health; the one that is content to lie 
and sleep and dream, whoever or whatever may give 
the authority to do so, is only stiffened into death. 
Why should not the influence, in this regard, of the 
written word be exerted in analogy with that which is 
exerted by the unwritten word of nature? 

Now let it be added, for the enlightenment of those 
who may fear that to answer this question in the affirm¬ 
ative would imperil the influence of the Christian Scrip¬ 
tures, that it has already been answered in the affirm¬ 
ative by millions who are still exerting not only a 
distinctly Christian but a Biblical influence. For years, 
during the time in which this work has been in con¬ 
templation, the author has been examining as well as 
he could the processes in the minds of people of such 
character. He has been trying, if possible, to discover, 


126 THE PSYCHOLOG Y OF INSPIRATION 

beneath their own explanations, which seldom inter¬ 
pret correctly the real workings of the mind, what 
their actual beliefs were. As a result, he has found 
few, if at all intelligent, who did not practically accept 
the text of Scripture as suggestive rather than dicta¬ 
torial. Nevertheless, owing to the influence upon them 
of doctrines which they had learned, they would seldom 
acknowledge this fact even to themselves. Would it 
not be of benefit to them, as well as to their associates 
of other or of no religions, if there could be some widely 
accepted philosophic principle in accordance with 
which theory and practise, in such cases, could be made 
to coincide? 

Or, to consider the subject in another light, would 
the acceptance of such a principle interfere in the least 
with the interest or importance attaching to that tex¬ 
tual study of the Scriptures, which, for centuries, has 
been the source of so much that has been stimulating 
to the general thought of the world, and been produc¬ 
tive of so much of its progress? Would the acceptance 
of this principle not rather furnish a well-grounded 
reason which, hitherto, has been lacking, for ending 
the prejudice, bigotry, bitterness, and persecution 
which have frequently been manifested in connection 
with such study? As for the study itself, it is a grave 
mistake to suppose that this could be stimulated more 
by a belief in the absolute infallibility of the letter of 
the text than by the other theory. The most effective 
mental stimulus does not come from a feeling of cer- 


SUGGESTIONS CAUSE STUDY 


127 


tainty with reference to such a subject. One who has 
been led to conceive that the results of inspiration 
from their very nature, must be mainly suggestive has 
obtained an additional inducement for studying them. 
He now feels impelled to do so because he knows that 
no brief, superficial reading will enable him to learn all 
that is in them. Why should this suffice to interpret 
what is termed the written word of the Spirit any more 
than a similarly superficial reading should suffice for 
the unwritten word that appears in nature? Upon 
those, therefore, by whom the theory presented in this 
book shall be accepted we need not expect any less in¬ 
fluence to be exerted by theological discussions or lead¬ 
ers. There will be, however, this difference between 
this influence and that coming from many religious dis¬ 
cussions and leaders of the past. Whatever thought 
this influence may awaken will be communicated to 
others in the only form in which it is possible for thought 
to be communicated successfully. No church that 
adopts the theory that the truth of inspiration is sug¬ 
gestive can logically try to cause men to accept it by 
the use either of physical or of moral force. Such a 
church will be compelled to recognize that a mind can 
accept thought only by thinking it. 

Now let us go back to illustrate and amplify, as has 
been promised, what was meant by saying that the 
outer representation in word and deed of that which 
has been suggested to the inner mind, tho differing in 
form, may be alike in spirit. Here is an instance that 


128 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

may exemplify this: the author knows of a case in 
which it is claimed that, through influence occultly 
exerted upon subconscious processes of thought, an 
attempt was made at a distance of a thousand or more 
miles to induce a man, who had not been met or heard 
of for years, to leave off a habit which the one who 
exerted the influence surmised rightly, tho psychically, 
to be undermining his physical and mental powers. 
The influence, purely argumentative in its own char¬ 
acter, is said to have appealed to the subject—who did 
not become aware of the attempt till receiving, days 
later, a letter dated on the night in which it was made— 
in the form of a very startling dream, in which he seemed 
to see the figure of death, to feel it touch him, to ex¬ 
perience dying, to awaken in a beautiful spiritual world, 
and there to be chased and caught by a hideous monster 
loathsome to sight, smell, and touch, who pretended to 
be a bosom friend, and gave himself the name of the 
habit from which it was sought to deliver him. Sup¬ 
pose this man, upon awakening, had told his dream, 
and others had accepted it, as a literal account of an 
actual “vision,” they would have done what millions 
have done in the past, and would have contributed 
their share to the formation of a new “myth.” It is 
possible, however, that some other man influenced 
according to the same method, in order to cure the 
same habit, would have had some other “vision,” and 
that the two “visions,” when compared, would have 
been found, in their details, to be very different, pos- 



ORIGIN OF MYTHS 


129 


sibly conflicting. What then? Then those who had 
taken the details of either “vision” to be that which 
was of importance in it would have been obliged to 
think one or the other of the reports of the details to 
be false. Those, however, who had realized that both 
visions might be results upon minds, differently consti¬ 
tuted and cultured, of an exactly similar suggestion, 
would have recognized that both might be true to this 
suggestion, and, also, tho apparently conflicting, true to 
one another. 

It seems pertinent to ask here whether what has just 
been said may not serve somewhat to interpret a fact 
often noticed and at different times differently re¬ 
garded. This fact is the similarity in import, notwith¬ 
standing differences in detail, of the representations of 
conditions in the spiritual world which have been at 
the basis of the beliefs and ceremonies of different re¬ 
ligions. For instance, not only among the Hebrews, 
but in ancient Egypt, Greece, India, and Persia, in 
connection even with Polytheism, there was a recog¬ 
nition of the existence of one Supreme Being, and, in 
all but the Hebrew religion, a suggestion of a peculiar 
relationship between this Being and two others, such 
as, in Christianity, has been developed into the doctrine 
of the Trinity. Again, we find assigned to more than 
one of the chief religious leaders a virgin-birth,* a life 
of holiness on earth, a death followed by a resurrection, 
and a devotion ever after, to the spiritual assistance of 


* See note on page 198. 


130 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


his worshipers. All these things were represented as 
true of the Persian Mithras, many of them of the East 
Indian Buddha, most of them of the Egyptian Osiris; 
and they are suggested in the prophecies of the return 
to earth of such national heroes as Caesar of Rome and 
Arthur of England. Similar ceremonies, too, have 
characterized most of these religions. The followers of 
Mithras observed sacraments, among which were bap¬ 
tism and the eucharist. Professor Franz CumonFs 
“Mysteres de Mithra” is said to show a photograph of a 
bas-relief of the ceremony of the latter, in which bread 
in the form of a wafer bears upon it, strangely enough, 
the impression of a cross. A European attending 
to-day a Buddhist service in China or Japan might 
imagine himself to be in a Catholic church; but the 
resemblance in this case would be no closer than be¬ 
tween a modern Protestant service and that of the 
Hebrews, or of the ancient Greek or Roman Stoics, or 
even of the present Mohammedans. Nor in listening 
to the exhortations in these religious gatherings would 
the differences noticed be as great as is sometimes 
imagined. In almost all of these religions there is, as 
in the Christian, an insistence upon the necessity of 
faith, fidelity, chastity, honesty, and holiness. Once 
in visiting a class-room in an American Congregational- 
ist Missionary College in Japan, the author found that 
they were studying ethics, and that their text-book 
was one of the works of Confucius. As is well-known, 
the Christians of the third and fourth centuries used 


SIMILARITY IN RELIGIONS 


131 


to attribute everything in the heathen religions un¬ 
mistakably resembling things in their own to the 
machinations of the devil, intended, through imitation, 
to deceive the elect, and capture them for his hostile 
camp. The same conclusion was reached by the 
Spanish fathers who first came to South America, and 
found among the Peruvians not only sacrificial cere¬ 
monies resembling those of the ancient Hebrews, but 
the distribution of bread and wine, confession, penance, 
and monasticism, which they had supposed to be 
peculiar to Christianity. Within the last hundred 
years, in view of what has been learned not only of the 
similarity between the rites of all the higher religions, 
but of the pure character of most of the teachings in 
them all, a more charitable theory has prevailed.' This 
may be said to be exprest in the passage of the 
Bible chosen as an opening text by the late Dean 
Trench in his “Hulsean Lectures” on this subject, 
namely, “The desire of all nations shall come” (Hag. 
2; 7). According to this theory, all of these religions— 
the higher ones, at least—owe their origin to the inborn 
rather than inspired struggle of man after truth, and 
all point to Christianity, in which is found a fulfilment 
of his inborn desire for an inspired revelation. It 
seems as if a broader interpretation than this might be 
acceptable in the near future. If no conditions in the 
spiritual world can ever be communicated to men ex¬ 
cept through the use of material symbols or forms, and 
if these can never represent the conditions fully or 


132 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


adequately, nor to minds, differently constituted or 
cultured, in an exactly similar way, then different 
symbols or forms may be used, in different nations, for 
the purpose of expressing exactly the same truth or 
principle, and not only in Christianity, but in all these 
nations, they may be inspired. 

When the future philosophic theologian comes to take 
in this conception, he will no longer be satisfied to study 
the sacred text of only his own form of religion, much 
less that of some commentator like Thomas Aquinas 
or John Calvin. He will study the text of all the higher 
religions, trying to find the similar import represented 
through their different legends, and the similar principle 
expounded in their not greatly differing precepts. Such 
an attitude of mind will almost infinitely elevate his 
aims and widen his horizon. It will cause him to 
search for the absolute, eternal, and infinite truth, and 
not merely, as, too frequently is the case now, for that 
which can be no more than relative to his own surround¬ 
ings and purposes, if not to his own interests as the 
hired advocate of some institution endowed for the 
purpose of perpetuating current opinions irrespective 
of the influence which should naturally be exerted upon 
all opinions by advancing thought and knowledge. 
Then, too, those who are guided by such a theologian 
will come to have a philosophic reason for believing in 
the universal spiritual fatherhood of God and in the 
spiritual brotherhood of man. They will come also to 
have a reasonable hope that the spiritual aspirations of 


SIMILARITY IN RELIGIONS 


133 


mankind, fulfilled, as they undoubtedly have been— 
tho, possibly, not exclusively—in the ideal presented 
in the career of the historic prophet of Judea, will unite 
in such a way as to make literally true the prophecy 
that “all the kingdoms of the world” shall “become 
the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev. 
11 ; 15 ). 


CHAPTER VI 


SIGNIFICANCE AND FORM IN SUGGESTED TRUTH 

A Conception Impressing Our Minds Is Not Identical with a Word 
Expressing It—The Latter Is a Result of Materializing the Con¬ 
ception-Use of Materialized Conceptions by Man and by the 
Creator—Universal Recognition of This Use—Appropriateness of 
Its Use in Inspiration and Revelation—How This Fact Modifies 
Certain Current Conceptions—Differences Between Scientific and 
Religious Truth—Application to Statements in the Bible—Render¬ 
ing These Conformable to Reason—And to Philanthropy—Degrees 
of the Credibility of the Influence Occultly Exerted Through the 
Subconscious—Depends Upon the Truthfulness of the Suggestion 
Given It as a Premise—The Truthfulness of This Suggestion and of 
Its Results Must be Determined by the Action of Some Conscious 
Mind—Whose Conscious Mind This Is—It Is a Mind Influenced by 
Heredity and Environment—This Explains the Development of the 
Truth as Revealed in the Bible—The Explanation Accords with 
Biblical Statements—With General Opinion—This Conception Does 
Not Render Biblical Truth Less Determinant. 


The thoughts brought out in the preceding chapter 
seem to carry with them the conclusion that, when nor¬ 
mally exprest, the utterances of a mind supposed to 
be inspired, because influenced from within irrespect¬ 
ive of appeals through eyes and ears, are illustrative 
rather than exactly reproductive of that which has im¬ 
prest it. This conclusion will become stronger the more 
critically we examine the subject. We shall find, too, 
that the principle is applicable to the utterances even 
of such conceptions as are only indirectly traceable to 
influences exerted upon the inner sphere of the mind. 
All utterances, as made by men, assume the forms of 


MEANINGS OF WORDS 


135 


words. But what are words? They are not repro¬ 
ductions of anything in the mind; they are merely 
symbols of something there. Moreover, they are 
symbols which, tho used by several men in the same 
sense, by no means indicate necessarily that these men 
are representing through them the same conception. 
For instance, take such a word as “thirst” or “water.” 
A dog, when he wants a drink, will run to and from a 
pail in which he has been accustomed to see water. 
He evidently has in mind a vision of this water, and not 
the word “water.” He never uses the word, and 
probably, therefore, does not think of it. So with a 
child who can not talk, or a savage whose vocabulary 
is limited. Grown people who understand language 
use the word, and, possibly, think of it. But, besides 
this, they think of something else. Just as clearly as 
the dog thinks of a pail, a child of a tumbler, or a 
savage of a river, they may think, according to the 
place in which each has been accustomed to sate his 
thirst, of a spring, a water-pitcher, or a public bar. This 
is the same as to say that the same general impression 
or conception may appeal to the mind in the form of a 
different image, and, if this image were carefully de¬ 
scribed in language, would be exprest to others in a 
different word. Add to this now the fact that thought 
in the mind is never at rest; that one thought is always 
passing into other thoughts; that one image is always 
connecting itself with other images; and we must con¬ 
clude that often out of the same psychic impression 


136 THE PSYC1I0L0GY OF INSPIRATION 


revealing itself definitely as a single image, different 
minds may construct, by way of accretion, whole series 
of imaginative fabrics that in form are different from 
one another. 

Now notice that the first image, and, of course, all 
the later images, are results of each mind’s appropri¬ 
ating, for its purpose, objects or conditions that have 
been perceived in material nature. To each of these 
images it may give a name, which name develops into 
what we term a word. Any one will recognize this who 
knows about the origin of words. The word is, for 
instance, comes through the German ist, the Latin est, 
and the Greek esti, from the old Sanskrit word as in¬ 
dicating the act of breathing; and because whoever 
breathes exists, it means to exist. The Greek word for 
spirit meant originally breath; and as the breath, tho 
unseen, evidently keeps the body alive, spirit came to 
mean the unseen principle of life, that without which, 
when it departs, the body dies. So on through large 
numbers of words till we come to those of modern 
origin like understanding, uprightness, and pastime. It 
may be said, therefore, that, altho the first psychic 
impression produced on the mind may be spiritual, 
the moment this impression assumes definite form and 
becomes an image, either in the mind’s conception or 
as represented in a picturesque word, and still more 
as this image connects itself with other images, the 
results become more or less materialized in character. 
In this form, tho occasioned by spiritual influence 


EXPRESSION MATERIAL IN FORM 137 


and representing it, they can not be said to be spiritual 
in themselves. They are merely illustrations drawn 
from the material world of something spiritual, which 
otherwise could not be communicated to us through 
the use of eyes or ears. We are not justified, there¬ 
fore, in claiming that these illustrations contain literal 
truth. Nor again are we justified in claiming that they 
contain no truth, or that they are not worthy of the 
most scrupulous study undertaken in order to ascertain 
what this truth is. 

The principle involved in these statements has come 
to be virtually recognized by all thinkers. They ac¬ 
knowledge that, at every stage of intellection, a man 
is forced to use the forms of the material world in order 
to represent his mental processes. Otherwise they 
could not be perceived clearly nor understood intel¬ 
ligently even by himself, and much less by others to 
whom he wishes to communicate them. Take any one 
of the more important of the emotions that actuate us 
and we shall recognize this fact. Take that experience 
in some of the manifestations of which religious people 
believe that a man most resembles the Unseen One. 
Think how love, which is begotten often in a single 
glance, and is matured in a single thrill, gives vent to 
its invisible intensity. How infinite in range and in 
variety are those material forms of earth and air and 
fire and water which are used by man as figures through 
which to represent the emotion within him! What ex¬ 
tended tho sweet tales, what endless repetitions of 


138 THE PS YCHOLOGY OF INSPIRA TION 


comparisons from hills and valleys, streams and oceans, 
flowers and clouds, are made to revolve about that soul 
which, through the use of them endeavors to picture 
in poetry spiritual conditions and relations which 
would remain unrevealed but for the possibility of 
being thus indirectly symbolized! Nor is it man alone 
who is obliged to use the forms of material nature in 
order to reveal the workings of his spirit. He himself 
does this only, as it were, by way of imitation; only 
because he partakes of the nature and therefore must 
follow the methods of the Creative Spirit to which • 
all men and all material nature owe their origin. If 
what has been said be true of the expression of human 
love, why should not the Great Heart whose calm beat¬ 
ing works the pulses of the universe express divine love 
through similar processes evolving infinitely and eter¬ 
nally into forms not ideal and verbal, but real and 
tangible—in fact, into forms which we term those of 
nature? 

Do we not all, subtly, at least, believe in the two 
statements just made? Do we not believe that ma¬ 
terial nature furnishes the representative implements 
through which a man creates language, and that it 
furnishes also the actual implements through which 
the Creative Spirit produces a language speaking, 
tho in a less articulate and distinct way, to our 
thoughts and emotions? Have not all who can under¬ 
stand this passage of Wordsworth accepted it as vir¬ 
tually true? 



EXPRESSION MATERIAL IN FORM 139 


“ I have learned 

To look on nature, not as in the hour 
Of thoughtless youth ; but hearing oftentimes 
The still, sad music of humanity. 

“ . . . And I have felt 
A presence that disturbs me with the joy 
Of elevated thoughts ; a sense sublime 
Of something far more deeply interfused, 

Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, 

And the round ocean, and the living air, 

And the blue sky, and in the mind of man : 

A motion and a spirit, that impels 

All thinking things, all objects of all thought, 

And rolls through all things.” 

Lines Composed a few Miles above Tintcrn Abbey. 

But now, if in ordinary words, all men, as a rule, ex¬ 
press themselves by appropriating material forms of 
nature through which to represent their thoughts, why 
should not an inspired man do the same? And if the 
Divine Spirit find expression in the “unwritten word” 
through material forms, why should not the same, or 
something in analog}^ with the same, be used in the 
methods of expression in the “written word?” This 
argument from analogy certainly seems approximately 
rational. Let us notice now how it applies to the in¬ 
terpretation of what are termed inspired Scriptures. 

Here, at the outset, one is compelled to admit that a 
logical conclusion from the thoughts that have so far 
been presented will not permit all of the readers of this 
volume to retain without modification the opinions 
with reference to our subject which up to this time 
they have not only held but cherished. This objection, 
however, is not insuperable. The scientific, artistic, 


140 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


or literary method of interpretation applied to that 
which exerts a religious influence need not necessarily 
destroy it. In such a case, to recognize that this in¬ 
fluence can affect the mind only indirectly through 
understanding, emotion, or imagination might be a 
help rather than a hindrance. To go immediately to 
the most indisputable source of inspiration of which we 
know, take the utterances of that Master who spake 
as “never man spake 7 ’ (John 7; 4G). So far were 
his words from being like those of a philosopher formu¬ 
lating a system, or of a leader dictating action, that 
hardly two associations of men since his time have been 
completely agreed as to exactly what body of belief or 
visible organization most accurately represents Chris¬ 
tianity as he proclaimed it, his apparent theory being 
that, if men came to take into their natures, as a living 
force, the inspiration derived from the suggestions that 
he gave them—from such a suggestion, for instance, 
as that they were sons of God—then that, both as in¬ 
dividuals and as members of his corporate church, they 
could safely be left, in applying the suggestion, to exer¬ 
cise the “liberty” with which he had made them “free” 
(Gal. 5; 1). Now if this were true of the words of 
Jesus, why should it not be true of the words of other 
inspired prophets? Have any of them been more truly 
inspired than he was? 

This argument from example may be confirmed by 
one based upon the nature of the conception which in 
religion is communicated. Significance obtained, as 


SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS TRUTH 141 


it mainly is in science ancl largely is in art, through the 
conscious action of the mind, may be imparted with 
definiteness and accuracy to an extent not true of that 
which has been obtained mainly or wholly through sub¬ 
conscious action. When we speak of scientific truth 
as applied to a statement, we mean something that 
formulates the mind’s conscious knowledge of every 
essential detail entering into the general result; we 
mean something that manifests no defective work of 
observation or of memory. When we speak of religious 
or even of artistic truth, of truth that is either inspira¬ 
tional or imaginative, it is often impossible that we 
should mean this; for we are speaking of something 
that involves certain contributions from the mind’s 
hidden sphere of action, and because this reveals to us 
no form that can be perceived or even distinctly con¬ 
ceived, they can not be formulated. They can be 
merely represented or suggested. Take the following: 

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world, 

Like a Colossus ; and we petty men 
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about 
To find ourselves dishonorable graves. 

Julius Ccesar , i ., 2: Shakespeare. 

Scientifically considered, hardly one word of this is true. 
No man who ever lived could bestride the world like a 
Colossus, or have any grown man not a dwarf walk 
under his legs. Yet the statement is not false, because 
the words mean merely that certain spiritual or mental 
relations existing between the man and us, which rela- 


142 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


tions can not be seen, are the same as those that might 
exist between the height that might be supposed to be 
seen in a Colossus and in a petty man, and that, there¬ 
fore, these forms that might be seen can suggest this 
unseen relationship. Or take another illustration: 

True hope is swift, and flies with swallow’s wings, 

Kings it makes gods, and meaner creatures kings. 

Richard III , v. 2: Shakespeare. 

This again is not literally or scientifically true, but only 
by way of suggestion. Hope never had swallows 7 wings; 
and it takes a good deal more than it to make kings 
gods, or meaner creatures kings. 

If a principle like this apply to the phraseology of art, 
it must apply still more to that of religion. In the 
Bible, God is called sometimes a sovereign whose actions 
are limited by only his own will (Dan. 4; 35), and some¬ 
times a father whose actions are limited by the needs 
and wishes of his children (Ps. 103; 13; Matt. 7; 11); 
the Christ is called sometimes the only son of God 
(John 3; 18), and sometimes the first born among 
many brethren (Rom. 8; 29); and Abraham is called 
sometimes the father of the Israelitish race (Is. 41; 8), 
and sometimes of those who are not members of that 
race (Rom. 14; 16). Taken as illustrations used to 
suggest relationships in an unseen spiritual world,' 
through what we can see and know of the relationships 
of king, father, son, brother, or children in a material 
world, these expressions may prove exceedingly helpful; 
but taken as statements of literal fact, they are contra- 


BIBLICAL TERMS SUGGESTIVE 


143 


dictory; and taken as arguments to prove exact con¬ 
ditions in the spiritual world, they may be very mis¬ 
leading. No better proof of this fact can be afforded 
than by the many books and sermons written by Cal¬ 
vinists to show that some doctrine like that of “elec¬ 
tion,” “imputed righteousness,” or “eternal generation” 
does not involve the irrational or erroneous conclu¬ 
sions that many have supposed, but has been mis¬ 
understood. Of course, it has been misunderstood; 
but might not a more thorough remedy for the mis¬ 
understanding be found by tracing it back to the ex¬ 
treme and erroneous literalism in which it first took 
rise. In order to show due regard or reverence for 
spiritual relationships which can only be figured or 
symbolized through reference to conditions in the ma¬ 
terial world, it is not necessary to ignore practically, 
or to deny, the plain statement in the Scriptures that 
“eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered 
into the heart of man the things which God hath pre¬ 
pared” (1 Cor. 2; 9). “My thoughts are not your 
thoughts. For as the heavens are higher than the 
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my 
thoughts than your thoughts” (Is. 55; 8, 9); “Un¬ 
searchable are his judgments, and his ways past find¬ 
ing out” (Rom. 11; 33). 

A similar principle applies to many Biblical expres¬ 
sions. The truth in them would often commend itself 
to us much more effectively could we perceive that they 
need not be interpreted literally. When, for instance, 


144 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


we are informed that “The Lord spake unto Moses,” 
or unto some other prophet, and are told the words 
spoken, why is it necessary for us to suppose that the 
term spake refers to words heard? Why need it indi¬ 
cate more than an influence exerted in an unseen, 
spiritual sphere suggestive of that which, in the material 
sphere, would be exerted through the use of language? 
We are acquainted with this method of understanding 
a statement, even when applied to a resemblance in 
conditions that are both material. A mother explains 
to her child that the mother-bird pushes the young 
birds out of her nest and tells them to fly; or she ex¬ 
plains her feelings, when the child does wrong, by say¬ 
ing that she is angry. In both cases, she says what, 
scientifically considered, is false; yet it is strictly true—- 
in spirit, as we say. And how else can we suppose the 
Scriptures to be true? If thus interpreted— i.e., con¬ 
sidered to be true merely in spirit—we can explain the 
most of their apparent discrepancies. We can explain 
why, for instance, we are told in Ex. 11; 1, 2, that, just 
before the Israelites were to leave Egypt forever, “The 
Lord said unto Moses . . . Speak now in the ears of 
the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbor 
and every woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver and 
jewels of gold”; and are also told in Ex. 12; 35, that 
“the children of Israel did according to the words of 
Moses, and they borrowed,” etc. If scientific accuracy 
had been the object here, we should have been informed 
in verse 35 that the Lord originated the idea. Fortu- 


LITERALISM AND PHILANTHROPY 145 

nately, we are not so informed. For this reason, 
when we come to consider the discrepancy indicated be¬ 
tween what we conceive to be the character of God and 
the advice to do evil that good may come, we may con¬ 
clude that these passages, interpreted in a literary and 
not a literal sense, mean no more than that Moses was 
inspirationally imprest with the conception that he 
should lead the people out of Egypt, and obtain funds 
for the purpose in the best way that he could, in which 
circumstances the natural promptings of a descendant 
of Jacob as well as of an enslaved race impelled him into 
advising the subterfuge of the false pretense of borrow¬ 
ing. So with the words of David and the works of 
Joshua. The accounts of these picture to us minds 
inspirationally imprest with the importance of sup¬ 
pressing and ending unrighteousness and idolatry. If 
these minds carry out the despotic and military prompt¬ 
ings of their age, by writing imprecatory psalms and 
committing wholesale slaughter, such manifestations, 
tho suggesting the feelings and methods of the Lord, 
do not necessarily express them with scientific accuracy. 
Read Ps. 109; 1-29 and Joshua 8; 26, 27: 10; 40 and 
11 ; 20 . 

When we think of all the iniquity and cruelty in 
family, society, and state which have resulted from the 
extreme literalism of the officials of ecclesiastical or¬ 
ganizations, we can not avoid feeling that the interpre¬ 
tations of the Scriptures rendered possible by conceiv¬ 
ing of all inspired expressions as mainly suggestive, 


146 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 

may be as much in the interest of philanthropy as of 
philosophy. Nevertheless, it is not supposed that all 
will accept these methods of interpretation. Some are 
so constituted that they imagine that inspired words 
can not be true unless they are true literally. There 
are some, too, who think the same of poetry. But, as 
was intimated a moment ago, they are not the ones who 
understand poetry the best or get the most truth out 
of it. 

Before passing on now to formulate certain principles 
in accordance with which what has been said may be 
practically applied to the interpretation of the Christian 
Scriptures, let us, in order to approach the subject in 
as broad and general a way as possible, inquire first into 
the degrees of credibility to be given to any communi¬ 
cations such as—are not supposed to be, but, pre¬ 
sumably—have been proved to be given through some 
occult influence, or, at least, some influence exerted 
over the inner sphere of the mind. Let us ask how far 
in themselves, simply because of the methods they in¬ 
volve, such communications may be considered worthy 
of credence. To answer the question in a manner as 
nearly scientific as possible, let us go back to hypnotism 
again. Let us ask whether a man, when receiving and 
developing a hypnotic suggestion, is necessarily dealing 
with the truth? There is no need of emphasizing the 
importance of this question. It is relevant to all the 
revelations of not only what are termed heathen re¬ 
ligions, but even of some of the non-heathen. Among 


UNTRUE OCCULT COMMUNICATIONS 147 


certain adherents of these, as we know, any actual 
proof that one has been actuated to deeds or utterances 
through some inner or occult influence is considered a 
proof also of the supernatural trustworthiness of every¬ 
thing that, when so influenced, he may do or say. Is 
there any scientific justification for this belief? Only 
one answer to this question accords with an intelligent- 
understanding of the subject. That answer is, “None 
whatever.” 

Those acquainted with the phenomena of hypnotism, 
and, therefore, with the operations of subconsciousness 
as disclosed—tho not originated—by hypnotic in¬ 
fluences, believe themselves to have reasons for holding 
that its processes of memory and logic are developed 
with well-nigh flawless consistency. When, however, 
from the method of development, they turn to examine 
the germ that is thus developed, they find that the 
same mind, w T hen given suggestions entirely antago¬ 
nistic in meaning, will develop each of them with equal 
consistency. But if this be so, why does it not follow 
that, in case the suggestion be untrue, and the premise 
therefore false, the entire result of the subconscious 
mental action will be false? This certainly does follow. 
A hypnotized man, if told that he is a bird, will act in 
one way; then, if told immediately afterward that he 
is a fish, he will act in another way, and each way will 
conform to his own conceptions of the mode of proce¬ 
dure of the being suggested. An insane man who sup¬ 
poses himself to be suffering from an injury inflicted 


148 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


by a friend ; or to be a king or an animal, acts exactly 
as he might act had he been permanently hypnotized. 
He can often remember and argue certain points with 
great accuracy, but he applies his ability to the devel¬ 
opment of a false premise. 

Now how, in a case of hypnotism or insanity, can the 
truth or falsity of the premise which subconscious 
mentality is developing be determined? How but by 
some action of conscious mentality. In the hypnotized, 
this, though seemingly dormant, is never, probably, 
completely so. It usually does not manifest itself when 
the suggestion can be carried out passively or play¬ 
fully, as in results of mere speculation and fancy. But 
when it comes to practical results of serious action, 
then the conscious mind, as if realizing that it should 
prevent danger to itself, is almost certain, we are told, 
to assert itself; then, a modest nature will not act im¬ 
modestly; an innocent nature will not incur guilt. 
Whether we consider the theory or the practise of 
hypnotism, therefore, some influence from a conscious 
mind, as already indicated elsewhere, seems required in 
order to prevent the misguidance of falsehood. This 
mind may be that of the patient himself, if it can be 
partly or fully restored to its normal condition. Other¬ 
wise, the mind of another or of others surrounding the 
patient must decide upon the truthfulness of the 
premise submitted. Evidently so far as concerns the 
patient himself, whether hypnotized or insane, it is 
because, for the time being, his consciousness is not 


INSPIRATION AND INTELLIGENCE 149 

working, that he is a victim of groundless imaginings. 
So much with reference to the hypnotic patient. How 
is it, now, with reference to one who is in a trance? 
Is not his consciousness, too, in a condition in which 
it is not working? And if so, what inference must we 
draw? Before answering this question let us recall 
that many attribute all inspiration to trance-conditions 
or to hypnotic conditions, which, in many of their mani¬ 
festations, can not be distinguished from trance-con¬ 
ditions. In addition to this, let us also recall that in 
certain countries, as in India and in parts of Southern 
Europe, the insane or idiotic, for the very reason that 
they manifest few results of conscious intellection, are 
supposed to be peculiarly gifted in the direction of in¬ 
spiration; and also that, in some philosophic books, 
insanity is allied to the subconscious intellection which 
is manifested in the artistic inspiration of genius. What, 
upon recalling all these facts, are we to conclude? 
Undoubtedly, that insanity, hypnotism, trance-condi¬ 
tions, and artistic and religious inspiration, all involve 
to some extent, the same form of mental action. But 
we need not go beyond this, and conclude that all the 
results of this form of mental action are similarly con¬ 
ditioned or are equally untrustworthy. The exact 
fact seems to be that their trustworthiness in each case 
depends upon the premise or suggestion which forms 
the germ from which the conscious result of the sub¬ 
conscious process is developed—which, by the way, is 
a very strong argument, as the merest tyro in logic can 


150 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


recognize, for the importance of having external re¬ 
ligious standards of belief conform as nearly as pos¬ 
sible to such as are absolutely true. To the insane, 
surrounding circumstances acting upon diseased nerves, 
give the suggestion. To the hypnotized, the hypno- 
tizer gives it. To the one in a trance, the persons con¬ 
sulting him— i.e., for whom he goes into the trance— 
may give it. Even tho consciously they may give 
nothing, nevertheless they may give it in the form 
of general impressions, conveyed from their subcon¬ 
scious mental tendencies. It is this fact, indeed, that 
affords whatever warrant there may be for the claim 
of the spiritists that those who consult a “medium” 
with the intention of finding fraud are almost certain 
to find it. In such cases the “medium” is the one 
hypnotized, and they are the hypnotizers who furnish 
the suggestion. In fulfilment of the same principle, 
those believing strongly in Catholicism usually hear, 
when consulting a clairvoyant, no doctrines radically 
inconsistent with their general belief; or if they be 
Quakers, none radically inconsistent with the opinions 
of Penn;* or, if they have a different experience 
this fact usually furnishes good evidence, that, at 

* This is not to say that they may not occasionally hear statements which 
they will find hard to reconcile with their beliefs: but only that, if so, they will 
be left to recognize the discrepancy for themselves. As bearing upon this gen¬ 
eral subject, Alfred Russel Wallace in his “Miracles and Modern Spiritualism,” 
pages 218 to 220, says that conflicting sectarian dogmas are sometimes pro¬ 
claimed through the agency of “mediums”; but he claims that these are never 
given except avowedly as the opinions of some individual spirit, and that, not¬ 
withstanding them, the legitimate inferences concerning the future life so far as 
it is actually described are in all cases, as coming from all “mediums.” virtually 
the same. 


INSPIRATION AND INTELLIGENCE 151 


heart, they themselves are not in sympathy with 
their creed. Of course they may be to blame for 
this, but in the degree in which the creed is erroneous 
they must be commended; for the facts show that they 
are more in sympathy with truth in general than with 
any particular form in which they have hitherto received 
it. Indeed, in case a mind has ever been wrongly in¬ 
structed, it is only in the degree in which it is abso¬ 
lutely unbiased that it can obtain from one in a trance- 
condition anything resembling absolute truth. 

What has been said leads to the same^ conclusion as 
that reached in Chapter IV—a conclusion, however, 
so important that it seems well to recur to it whenever 
it needs to be newly applied. The conclusion is this— 
that whatever is received through subconscious agency 
is liable to be more or less modified by thoughts and 
feelings in some conscious mind. As has been inti¬ 
mated, this conscious mind may be either that of the 
person who is being influenced, or inspired, as we say, 
by or through his own subconscious intellection; or it 
may be the mind of another who, through the com¬ 
bined results of conscious and subconscious processes, 
may be supposed to be furnishing external suggestions 
to the inspired person. If the conscious mind be that 
of the inspired person himself, the trustworthiness of 
the premise which he develops will depend upon his 
own intellectual and spiritual attainments and char¬ 
acter. If the conscious mind be that of another, or 
of others surrounding him. the trustworthiness of the 



152 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

premise will depend upon their intellectual and spiri¬ 
tual attainments— i.e., upon whether they know what 
truth is, and whether they desire to have it exprest 
with exactness. 

To state this thought differently, the form of an 
inspired communication must depend to some extent 
upon the intelligence and character of the minds 
through which and to which it is made. It is impor¬ 
tant to notice, in addition to this, that this form may be 
affected by both conscious and subconscious intellec¬ 
tion in these minds. The reason for this is that the 
results of conscious observation of external objects 
and events are constantly being stored and developed 
in the subconscious region, and furnishing the whole 
mind with its material. The conditions, therefore, 
seem to indicate that what may be termed the formula¬ 
tion of inspiration is always liable to be more or less 
modified, because developed under the influence of 
suggestions coming both from the mind of the inspired 
person and, sympathetically, from the minds of those 
to whom his communications are given. In other 
words, it seems to be necessary to admit the effect upon 
inspiration of environment, under which term we may 
include both the individual and the general thought 
of one’s own age, and not only of this but of former 
ages of which the thought of one’s own age is a result. 

In these conditions we seem to find a needed ex¬ 
planation for those who argue—with however much or 
little reason it is not necessary for us, at present, to 



PROGRESSIVE TRUTH IN BIBLE 


153 


discuss—that the earlier books of the Bible manifest in 
places the influences of comparatively low domestic, 
social, ethic, religious, and, as applied especially to 
accuracy, scientific and historic standards. We can 
attribute such facts—if we have not the ability or 
data to prove that they are not facts—to the environ¬ 
ments of him through whom the religious influences 
were communicated. It seems, too, as if this were a 
more satisfactory explanation of what is called “the 
development of truth” in the Old and New Testaments, 
than is the theory that ascribes it to some plan of the 
Almighty such as, if carried out by a man, would involve 
—as some think—a form of deception. Rather than 
to foster such an impression, and to seem to attribute 
to the Creative Power limitations in morality, is it not 
better to attribute the result to limitations in ability? 
When man was given a rational intellect and a free 
will, to say nothing of a material body, spiritual in¬ 
fluence over him was limited. Why is it not logical to 
infer that at the same time, and for the same reasons, 
the possibility of holding spiritual communication with 
him was limited? If so, whether the substance of in¬ 
spiration may be supposed to come immediately from 
the Divine Being, or mediately through other intervening 
intelligences, it is hardly possible to conceive that its 
highest and broadest significance could be intelligible to 
the low and limited capacity of the human mind receiv¬ 
ing it, or could become wholly expressible, or rendered 
wholly intelligible, through any effort of that mind-, 




154 TEE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


To a certain extent this view must be conceded to be 
justifiable by a large number of very orthodox people, 
if they wish to be logical. Who of them deny that, in 
accordance with what is said in 1 Cor. 2; 14, the truth 
of the Scriptures must be “spiritually discerned”? 
But what does this mean except that the inspired ele¬ 
ment is underneath the phraseology rather than in it? 
Indeed, are not all the words of the phraseology, with 
their various suggestions, more or less the results of 
the thinking processes, conscious and subconscious, of 
the mind that happens to be the medium of the spiritual 
communication? “We have this treasure,” says Paul, 
referring in 2 Cor. 4; 7, to the truth that may be sup¬ 
posed to be divine and absolute, “in earthen vessels.” 
We know that the divine purposes, as they are mani¬ 
fested in other earthen vessels—in crystals, flowers, 
and animals—are not embodied with unvarying pre¬ 
cision. Probably no diamond, rose, or human face 
was ever discovered that did not manifest some varia¬ 
tion from that which science could prove to be its 
typical or ideal form. Now if these material objects 
all leave some of their material influence upon the evi¬ 
dent divine plan to shape them in accordance with a 
divine law, why should not the human mind also leave 
some of its more powerful mental influence upon the 
truth which the mind receives, transmits, and, to a 
certain extent, interprets? 

We may illustrate this subject in another way. Sup¬ 
pose a man to have all the subconscious requirements 


MENTAL BALANCE IN THE INSPIRED 155 

for inspiration—susceptibility to the promptings of in¬ 
stinct, of conscience, and of sympathy—nevertheless do 
we not all recognize that without something in his 
conscious thinking to balance this, he may be entitled 
to have no more influence than a mere enthusiast, or 
even an influence as injurious as that of a fanatic? In 
either case, our most common comment on his efforts 
will probably be that he is not practical. What do we 
mean by this? What but that he is not able to ac¬ 
commodate his speech and action to existing emergen¬ 
cies— i.e., to surrounding material conditions, to facts 
as discovered by investigation, and comprehended 
within the sphere of what we term knowledge ? Only 
as that which takes its rise in the realm of spirit is 
correlated by a man to that which is in the realm of 
matter, so as to find expression through it, can he do 
for his fellows all that a man of intelligence should do. 
This is true as applied to him not only as a thinker, but 
as a teacher and leader of others who should think. 
No one can cause either himself or his neighbor to ap¬ 
prehend the full import of spiritual conditions whose 
mind is not able to do, in some degree, as did the Christ 
when he never spake without a parable (Mark 4; 34) 
— i.e., without indicating a correspondence between 
spiritual and material conditions. Men can not fully 
recognize the religious connection between mercy and 
salvation, between faith and love, unless they can per¬ 
ceive them illustrated through analogies of the same 
in secular connections. They can not fully realize the 


156 THE PSYCHOL OGY OF INS PIP A TI ON 


relations between God and man, unless they can see 
these relations imaged in the relations between man 
and man, or, if they be Christians, between the Great 
Master and man. Indeed, religion can not become in 
the highest sense rational and enlightening, unless it 
be led by certain ideals; and ideals are always earthly 
vessels with heavenly contents; outlines modeled on 
the lower world, filled in with light and color from 
the upper; figures of the actual transfigured by the 
potential. 

What has just been said, if it be in accordance with 
facts, may render the statement of the truth less com¬ 
prehensible and definite, but it need not render the 
truth itself less apprehensible and determinant. As 
applied to other matters, when a person urges us to a 
course of justice, or wisdom, or warns us of danger or 
folly, we have no difficulty in recognizing the truth 
of his appeal, notwithstanding manifestations of even 
great exaggeration and inaccuracy of statement, so 
far as concern details of emphasis and recollection. We 
at once separate the significance of what he has to say 
from that which he has formulated— i.e., the spirit of 
his expression from the letter of it—clearly recognizing 
that the defects in this latter are attributable to his 
own mental limitations, and do not materially affect 
that which to him constitutes the essential part of the 
communication. Why should not the same principle 
apply to some extent at least—even tho complete 
investigation may show that it is never necessary to 



INSPIRATION IN TI1E SCRIPTURES 157 


resort to it to the extent which some imagine—to that 
which may be supposed to be received through the form 
of inspiration which is exemplified in the Christian 
Scriptures? 



CHAPTER VII 


THE RATIONAL METHOD OF INTERPRETING BIBLICAL 

STATEMENTS 

Theories of Modern Biblical Critics—How to Reconcile with the Con¬ 
ception of Inspiration the Conception That Parts of the Bible Are 
Compiled from Other Writers—Scriptural Warrants for Testing 
by the Conscious Mind the Truth Coming Through the Sub- 
conscious—The Test Afforded by the Results of Previous Informa¬ 
tion—Of Intuitive Insight—Of Logical Inference—Application of 
Faith to Matters Beyond the Reach of Conscious Information, 
Intuition, or Inference. 

If we can suppose the principles brought out at the 
conclusion of the chapter preceding this to be applicable 
to the interpretation of the Christian Bible, we shall 
find them affording a strictly logical method of recon¬ 
ciling the very highest conception of the sources of 
inspiration with the most advanced theories of modern 
Biblical critics. These theories one need not himself 
accept in order to recognize the importance, in view 
of the many who have accepted them, of showing that 
they do not necessitate a rejection of the authoritative 
character of the writings to which they apply. 

One reason why the theories are sometimes supposed 
to necessitate this is that, according to them, many 
of the books of the Bible, instead of being, as was 
formerly supposed, consecutive and original, were 
compiled from different writings existing previously to 

158 


COMPILATION IN TIIE BIBLE 


159 


the time when they were arranged as at present. It 
is held, moreover, that these previous writings were not 
only of Hebraic origin, as indicated in such passages 
as Joshua 10; 13, “Is not this written in the book of 
Jasher?” or as 1 Kings 11; 41, “And the rest of the acts 
of Solomon and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they 
not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?’' but 
that they were often of Gentile origin. The first two 
chapters of the book of Genesis, for instance, are said 
to contain two separate accounts of the creation, in the 
first of which the word used for God is invariably the 
Hebraic equivalent for Elohim, a plural title for the 
Almighty adopted by the Hebrews from other languages 
and in the second is invariably the Hebraic equiv¬ 
alent for Jehovah, the peculiar title of the God of the 
Jews. The first of these accounts, too, is said to have 
been discovered among the ancient Chaldean records, 
tho mixed there with many childish legends and 
polytheistic explanations. It is claimed that the com¬ 
piler of the book of Genesis reproduced this account, 
leaving out the legends, or at least those from which 
important spiritual lessons could not be drawn, and 
making the explanations monotheistic. Can such a 
claim be reconciled with a theory of inspiration that 
shall continue to render these books authoritative? 
Evidently, according to the view presented in Chapter 
IV, it can be. For, in the first place, according to this 
view, inspiration may exist among any people. The 
general order of creation may have been perceived by 


160 THE PSYCI1OLOGY OF INSPIRATIOK 


some Chaldean seer—possibly later, with the same 
result, by a Hebraic—in the manner suggested in the 
note at the bottom of this page; * and if so, there would 
be truth in the general outlines. But, in the second 
place, according to this view, wherever inspiration 
exists, the conscious thinking of the seer or interpreter 
is apt to modify it. This fact may account for any 
number of additions, mythologic or polytheistic, made 
to the inspired matter either by the Chaldean seers 
themselves, or by the writers who handed down their 
utterances. But the same fact may also account for 
the omission of myths, and the substitution of the 
monotheistic theory, on the part of the Hebraic com- 

* William Denton, who was at one time the State Geologist of Massachu¬ 
setts, in his book entitled “The Soul of Things,” gives accounts of hundreds of 
experiments in what he calls psychometry. In this the subconscious mind 
seems to derive a suggestion from a material object, and to be influenced to 
make explorations into its story in a manner somewhat analogous to that in 
which the mind of the physician mentioned on page 65 explores the distant. 
Professor Denton found that certain persons were what he termed “sensitives.’’ 
Into the hands of these he would place a particular object without informing them 
about it; and they would then describe it and give its history. For instance, he 
would put lava into the hands of a child ignorant of its character, and this child 
would describe the whole process of its formation from a volcano. The author 
of this book has placed letters in the hands of persons of this kind, who, without 
opening them, have not only determined their contents, but have accurately de¬ 
scribed the characters of their writers and the localities from which the letters 
were sent. One of these persons is said to have described in this manner the 
experience of a nail, all the way from the mine, whence its iron was taken, 
through its voyages in a battleship to a sea-fight. It seems useless to argue 
any question with one who denies that a knowledge of the existence of such 
methods of mental action does not materially assist the mind in conceiving how 
the series of pictures in the first chapter of Genesis, describing successive stages 
in the creation of the world, which no man could ever have seen, might have 
been composed. Nor does it lessen, but increase a true conception of divine 
inspiration, to find some way, as in this case, of making its possibilities more 
comprehensible. When the divine mind works through human agency, it is not 
only appropriate for us, but incumbent upon us as rational beings, to try to 
ascertain the methods of this agency. 


INSPIRED COMPILATION 


161 


pilers. We all know that certain minds, when a com¬ 
plicated mixture of fact and fiction is presented to them, 
manifest peculiar facility in separating the one from 
the other, and bringing to light the truth. Most of us 
feel, too, if we do not know, that such minds reach 
their conclusions through work that is not done wholly 
in the region of consciousness. They reach them in¬ 
tuitively, as we say, which is the same as to attribute 
them in part to the mental processes that are hidden. 
If, in the selection and arrangement of written records, 
these mental processes took place in the mind of one in 
thorough sympathy with the Source of all truth, and 
while developing suggestions derived from this Source, 
why might not the result conform completely to that 
which is demanded in inspiration? Why should there 
be any greater difficulty in ascribing inspiration to the 
selection and arrangement of prehistoric matter, as in 
the book of Genesis, than of historic matter, as in the 
books of the Kings? And, once more, going back to the 
main proposition advanced in this chapter, why should 
we not suppose that, in this prehistoric matter itself, 
there should be certain results of inspiration which, 
when selected and arranged by the inspired compiler, 
would have just as much authority as could be assigned 
to original documents? 

We are now prepared to say that, in trying to ascer¬ 
tain the character of the truth of inspiration, it seems 
rational to carry out the principle already suggested 
on page 100. Intelligently interpreted, the expres- 


162 THE PSYCHOL 0 GY OF INSPIRA T1 ON 


sions, “Blessed are they that hear the word of God and 
keep it” (Luke 11; 28). “An evil generation . . . 
seek a sign” (Luke 11; 29), and “Believe not every 
spirit,” even tho it be a spirit, “but try the spirits 
whether they are of God” (1 John 4; 1), can have but 
one meaning; and this is that men should test a state¬ 
ment, even tho coming from an acknowledged spiritual 
source, precisely as they would a statement coming 
from any other source. And how would they test this? 
Mainly, it may be said, in three ways: by its conformity 
to the results in consciousness—first, of previous in¬ 
formation; second, of intuitive insight, and, third, of 
logical inference, as determined according to the laws 
of evidence and of argument. In the Scriptures, all 
three methods are recognized as legitimate. 

Here is what is said of the first of them: “Let that 
therefore abide in you which ye have heard from the 
beginning” (1 John 2; 24). “To the law and to the 
testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it 
is because there is no light in them” (Is. 8; 20). “Search 
the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life. And they are they which testify of me (John 5; 
39). “We ought to give the more earnest heed to the 
things that we have heard, lest at any time we should let 
them slip” (Heb. 2; 1). “These were more noble than 
those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word 
with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures 
daily whether these things were so” (Acts 17; 11). 
Compare also John 15; 3 and 17; 17: 2 Tim. 3; 15: 


TESTS OF BIBLICAL TR UTIL 


163 


Deut. 11; 18, 19: Jos. 1; 8: Rom. 15; 4: 2 Peter 1; 
19, etc. The general principle underlying such in¬ 
junctions is almost self-evident. It is this: The in¬ 
dividual has time to discover and develop compara¬ 
tively little; he must avail himself of that which, 
through revelation or reflection, has been attained by 
others who may be considered to have been, on the 
whole, accurate in their observations, honest in their 
convictions, candid in their representations, and wise 
in their conclusions. In a general way, this may be 
said to necessitate every one’s having what may be 
termed intellectual charity. Exercised toward the be¬ 
liefs of his ancestors, and in an ecclesiastical direction, 
this charity might make a man a churchman, and 
zealous in training the young in the tenets of his church; 
but, at the same time, exercised toward the beliefs of 
strangers or of adherents of other sects or religions, the 
two methods of testing truth yet to be considered would, 
of themselves, cause him to recognize mental rights to a 
sufficient extent to keep him from being a bigot. But 
some may ask how, if we apply the first test, can we 
also apply the second and third tests; in other words, 
how can one let that “ abide” in him which he has 
“heard from the beginning,” and yet, while doing this, 
not surrender his individual exercise of intuitive in¬ 
sight, or logical inference? In this way, as it seems: 
According to what was said on page 152, that which is 
received from without the mind, when left to take its 
natural course—t’.e., when left to influence one’s spirit 



164 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


in the way in which nature has provided that the spirit 
should be influenced—sinks into the region of un¬ 
consciousness. Here, digested, so to speak, by the 
mind, and incorporated into its working organism, the 
importations from without become a part of the sub¬ 
conscious possessions, giving inevitable bias to each 
prompting that emerges into consciousness. For this 
reason they may be said to be constantly operative in 
the mind. But they are not operative in any such 
way as to interfere with the conscious freedom of the 
mind, whether exercised in forming judgments or in 
drawing conclusions. In Chapter XII it will be 
shown that a man of faith is one who is governed by 
his subjective promptings, and, in this sense, by that 
which has been “heard from the beginning/ 7 and which 
gives bias to these; but, at the same time, it will be 
shown that he must exercise the conscious powers of 
his mind fully as much as others who have no faith. 
His mind works differently from theirs solely in being 
“not disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26; 
19), in giving not only due, but chief consideration to 
the spiritual side of life—to motives that come from 
the realm within, from the ideal; whereas the others do 
not give these the chief consideration, being influenced 
almost exclusively from the material side of life, from 
that which is outward and real. The great religious 
leaders—Augustine and Luther not only, but Jesus as 
well—have been characterized not by any neglect of 
the results of intuitive insight or of logical inference, 


TESTS OF BIBLICAL TR UTH 


165 


but by a conscientious endeavor to subordinate or 
conform these to that which has been “heard from the 
beginning.” They have sought to develop this latter, 
and not to destroy it. They have been conservative as 
well as progressive. They have tried to graft the new 
upon the old, and thus to reform rather than to revo¬ 
lutionize. If we grasp this conception of the subject, 
we shall perceive that an application of the test that 
we have been considering need not interfere with an 
application of the tests that are to follow. The most 
conscientious and conservative mind, when working 
normally, can be governed by that which has “been 
heard from the beginning,” and yet be influenced not 
by precept but by principle, and being so, can carry 
this latter out not according to the letter but according 
to the spirit, and therefore so as not in any sense 
to make the “word of God/’ communicated in any 
other way, “of none effect through” mere “tradition” 
(Mark 7; 13). 

This last quotation may well introduce the second 
test of truth mentioned on page 162, namely, that 
afforded by the conformity of results to those of intui¬ 
tive insight. “Blessed are they,” said Jesus (Luke 11; 
28), “that hear the word of God and keep it”— i.e., with¬ 
out any other evidence. “An evil generation . . . seek 
a sign” (Luke 11; 29); and the method of the apostles 
is said to have been “by manifestation of the truth 
commending” themselves “to every man’s conscience” 
(2 Cor. 4; 2). The idea here seems to be that truth 


166 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 


can be determined at times by its own inherent quality. 
Indeed, for other reasons, one might almost be justi¬ 
fied in holding a theory that a mind working normally 
should recognize the difference between truth and error 
as inevitably as a tongue recognizes the difference be¬ 
tween the sweet and the bitter. Of course, the trust¬ 
worthiness of this theory can never be fully tested, be¬ 
cause, as a fact, the mind seldom or never does work 
normally. Consciously or unconsciously, it is constantly 
under the influence of false standards of thought and 
action, causing false conceptions of what causes truth 
to be of authority, and mistaken endeavors to make 
the information freshly presented conform to false¬ 
hood already accepted. Notwithstanding this, it is 
probably a fact that absolute truth is attained mainly 
in the degree in which men who lead the world to the 
appreciation and application of new phases of the 
truth, as well as the followers of such men, are largely 
inclined to judge of it intuitively; and that no other 
method, if conscientiously applied, can so well pre¬ 
serve men in times of either religious decline or progress 
from too great retrogression on the one hand or pre¬ 
cipitancy on the other. 

The third test of truth was said to be conformity to 
the results of logical inference or reasoning. “Let us 
reason together,” says Isaiah in Is. 1; 18; let us give a 
“reasonable service,” urges Paul in Rom. 12; 1. A 
result may be rendered reasonable in many different 
ways—chiefly, perhaps, by being made to fulfil the 


TESTS OF BIBLICAL TRUTH 167 

laws of argument or of evidence, as applied either to 
the substance of an utterance, or to the character of its 
utterer, as manifested in either his words or his actions. 
“Believe me,” said Jesus to Philip, “ or else believe 
me for the very work’s sake” (John 14; 11). But to 
whatever this test of logical inference may be applied, 
it is a test which the mind is always ready to assume 
that it has a right to apply. Who ever heard a sermon 
in the most bigoted of sects the whole object of which 
was not to show the accordance of some statement in a 
text with not only the previous information of the 
audience concerning its subject or other subjects, and 
with the intuitive promptings of conscience, but also 
with conclusions logically deducible from an examina¬ 
tion of testimony and argument? 

But if we may judge of truth according to these last 
two tests, some one may ask what are we to do with 
inspired statements to which neither test can be ap¬ 
plied, with statements concerning matters beyond the 
reach of human insight or reasoning, with statements 
which have to be accepted upon faith? The answer 
is that one holding the theory just presented would 
have to accept such statements for the same reason 
that causes any one else to accept them (see page 314). 
The strongest argument in favor of them is that the 
matters to which such statements refer form a part of a 
general system of belief, and that a system which can be 
proved to be true as a whole must be true in its parts; 
and the force of this argument can not be lessened by 


168 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


anything that has been said here. There is every 
reason to believe that the three tests that have been 
indicated, when applied to Scriptural truth, will prove 
it abundantly able of itself to maintain any authority 
that it may need 


CHAPTER VIII 


ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST INTERPRETING BIBLICAL 
STATEMENTS AS SUGGESTIVE AND NOT DICTATORIAL 

The View Presented in the Preceding Chapter Seems to Subject the 
Truth of God to the Judgment of Man—This Method in Analogy 
with Other Ways in Which Man is Expected to Interpret Divine 
Truth—Nature and Experience Influence Him so as to Cultivate 
His Power of Acting Rationally—Effect of This Upon the Young— 
We Should Expect the Same Method to Be Pursued in Revelation : 
Impossibility of Any Other Method Except the Suggestive in 
Communicating Spiritual Truth—The Error of Interpreting the 
Scriptures Literally. 


All the objections that can be brought against the 
line of thought just presented may be resolved, in the 
last analysis, into one, namely, that it seems to sub¬ 
mit, and even to subject, that which is supposed to be 
divine truth to the tests of human judgment, and this 
the judgment not merely of a collection of men, but 
often of an individual. It is argued that to allow each 
man to determine independently the application of 
divine truth to himself and to those for whom he is 
responsible is equivalent to claiming that he can get 
along without any divine guidance whatsoever. In¬ 
deed, some go so far as to insinuate that if one be left 
to make out of the Bible what he chooses, he is no 
better off than if he had no Bible. A little reflection, 
however, will reveal that such inferences are not 
strictly deducible from the premises. It is not logical 

169 


170 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF IKSP1RATION 


to conclude from what has been said that a man can 
get out of the Bible what he chooses, but only what he 
thinks; and a Bible which is made a source of thought 
may impart a great deal, even tho accepted suggestively 
rather than dictatorially. Besides this, on account of 
the influence always exerted from the divine source of 
life over the mind, especially that part of it which in¬ 
cludes the subconscious, a man, even if left to himself, 
is not left without something impelling him, and this 
in a very unmistakable manner, to construe the truth 
submitted to his judgment in accordance with the 
divine intention. The very fact that one is created 
with the possibility of eyesight and given light causes 
him to be guided by the Creator, even tho in addition 
\ to this he feel no hand leading him. In the same way, 
the very fact that he is created with the possibilities of 
subconscious mentality, not to say morality, and given 
suggestions, causes him to be guided by the Creator, 
even tho in addition he hear no word of explicit 
command. 

Whatever may be said against the method of ac¬ 
cepting the Scriptures advanced in the preceding 
chapter, this method is in analogy with those that we 
are obliged to pursue when accepting any truth that 
the Divine Being imparts in any other way. There is 
many a lesson taught by nature; but we are forced to 
study hard in order to learn it; and, even then, we are 
not always certain that we have learned it aright. 
Meantime, however, we have learned enough—if not 


TRUTH IX NATURE SUGGESTED 


171 


to satisfy our desire for knowledge—at least to secure 
our physical safety. As will be shown presently, this 
is exactly paralleled by what every man can learn from 
the Scriptures with reference to that which can secure 
his spiritual safety. Again, in connection with the 
suggestive character of divine revelation as imparted 
through nature, the human mind has been so influenced 
that every mental factor that is of real value in human 
progress has been stimulated to the full. If man had 
not been left to find out many truths, which are not 
revealed in nature but merely suggested, humanity 
would never have known such developments as are in¬ 
dicated by the words philosophy, science, and history. 
The same is true with reference to the revelations in the 
Scriptures. Think how the world of thought would be 
impoverished if it could be possible to eliminate from 
our libraries not only all our theological works, but all 
the essays, poems, and novels written in order to ad¬ 
vocate or oppose certain peculiar interpretations of 
vague and doubtful passages of Scripture! How, too, 
would the world of achievement be impoverished, 
could we eliminate from it the results, in philanthropy 
and missionary enterprise, w r hich have been due to 
organized efforts to emphasize one or another of these 
possible interpretations! 

But how about the individual? it may be asked. Is 
he to be left to be the slave of his own lack of intel¬ 
ligence and judgment? There is but one answer to 
this—he certainly should be left in this condition, 


172 TIIE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

unless his own reason tell him that it is wiser for him 
to be guided by those who have learned more, and 
have thought more, than he himself has. Fortunately, 
reason, wherever it is followed, usually does tell most 
men exactly this. So far as it does not tell them this, 
one can not easily perceive upon what ground it can 
be argued that they are under obligation to surrender 
their own mental rights; especially in view of the fact 
that, by not doing so, they are really increasing their 
ability to exercise these? If there be any solution for 
the most important problem which life presents to all 
of us; if there be anything that explains what existence 
on earth is intended to do for a man, the solution, so 
far as it can be indicated by the facts of experience, 
must be this—that life is designed to train a rational 
creature to act rationally—by which latter word is 
meant here to act in accordance not merely with the 
highest intellectual, but also with the highest emotional 
and spiritual motives. No one can consider for any 
length of time the conditions to which a man is sub¬ 
jected on earth without recognizing that, in order to 
do right, he must always make a rational choice be¬ 
tween alternatives. Moreover, as if all the conditions 
were arranged so as to force him to exercise this choice, 
he must always make it between alternatives of such 
a nature that either of them, if allowed to influence his 
action without his making a choice, would necessitate 
his doing wrong. For instance, take one of the primary 
obligations of religious practise: a man, it is said, 


LIFE DESIGNED TO TRAIN RATIONALITY 173 


should be self-sacrificing and generous. But how? If 
saving nothing, he give away all that he has, he will 
impoverish himself to such an extent as to become not 
only a public nuisance but a public burden. Even if, 
like the so-styled “holy men ’ 7 of India, he do not walk 
the streets naked, and beg, he will, at least, oblige 
others to work for him, and, possibly, tax themselves 
in order to build a poor-house in which he may find 
board and lodging. On the other hand, if he become 
a miser and save everything, he will enrich himself at 
the expense of the community, and become an equal 
nuisance and burden, because contributing nothing to 
the general welfare. What can he do? It is usually 
impossible that any one should tell him this, because no 
one can know all the demands that circumstances and 
conscience may make upon him. It is impossible that 
he should do exactly right, therefore, except so far as 
he exercises his own reason, and makes a wise choice 
between giving too much and too little. Exactly the 
same sort of choice must be exercised with reference to 
every question that presents itself for practical solu¬ 
tion. In no methods of pastime or of business, of enter¬ 
tainment or of philanthropy, of feasting or of exhort¬ 
ing, of dancing or of praying, of manifesting loyalty to a 
political party or to a church of which he is a member, 
can a man do right merely by following the advice or 
dictation of others. There come times when it is es¬ 
sential that he should make for himself a rational choice 
between extremes. 


174 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 

How almost every earnest young person between 
fifteen and twenty-five years of age suffers because of 
this obligation! Just as he becomes free from the dic¬ 
tation of parents or teachers, how he longs—often 
unconscious of the reason why—for some other person 
to take their places and tell him exactly what is or is 
not right! This feeling explains why so many, at this 
age, rush into churches, or orders, which claim it to be 
the first duty of mind to submit to the authority of 
others. But is it wise or right for reason, in this way, 
to rid itself of its responsibilities? Certainly not, if 
the object of life be to train one to use his reason. Cer¬ 
tainly not if, by missing this training, one miss the de¬ 
velopment which he was sent into the world to secure. 
Nor, however much of the effects of training or develop¬ 
ment he may avoid by such a course, can he ever 
escape wholly from the responsibility that he seeks to 
shirk. His mind may become that of a bigot, too 
weighted on one side by authority to think with bal¬ 
ance, or that of a fanatic, too excited or affrighted by 
the same to think with sequence; nevertheless there 
will come times when he must think, and think for 
himself—times when he is reading in private his Bible 
or his ritual—times when he is dealing in private with 
his servant or his fellow. Is it not inevitable that, at 
such times, the reason that has been so treated as to 
form a habit of not acting at all, or of not acting nor¬ 
mally, will come to one decision, and the reason that has 
not been so treated will come to another decision? If 


BIBLE SHOULD TRAIN RATIONALITY 175 


so, which decision of the two is likely to be more in 
accord with the laws of nature, material or spiritual, 
human or divine?—that given by the reason which has 
been artificially sheltered like a grown man always 
kept in a nursery?—or by the reason which the influ¬ 
ences naturally exerted upon life in the world have, 
according to methods divinely designed, brought to 
the condition that must have been intended? 

Besides what has just been said, however, and the 
very logical conclusion that may be drawn from it, 
which is that the same method of divine influence which 
is exerted upon reason through nature and experience 
should be exerted upon reason when coming also 
through the mediumship of the inspired Scriptures, 
a deeper consideration needs to be noticed before one 
can apprehend fully why spiritual truth is not com¬ 
municated through explicit statements. This consider¬ 
ation is that, to communicate it thus would be in¬ 
trinsically impossible. How could men accustomed 
to only material conditions be made to understand the 
nature of spiritual conditions except by way of sug¬ 
gestion? The common sense at the basis of this ques¬ 
tion ought to reveal itself even to the advocates of the 
view opposed to the one here presented, if, for no other 
reason, because they all profess strenuously to believe 
in the literal interpretation of the Bible. What does 
this book say on the subject? (Is. 55; 8, 9) “My 
thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are your 
ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than 



176 TIIE PSYCHOLOGY OF IXSPIRATION 


the earth ; so are my ways higher than your ways”; or, 
to quote again from 1 Cor. 2; 9, “Eye hath not seen 
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of 
man the things which God hath prepared for them 
that love him.” Those of us who prefer to interpret 
these passages as we do others— i.e., by the aid of 
reason—will recall that the experiences of mind—which, 
if not a part of those of spirit, are, at least, the ones most 
resembling the experiences of spirit—are never mani¬ 
fested through our material body by anything that, in 
the least, resembles themselves. In the seven volumes 
on “Comparative Esthetics” written by the author of 
this book, innumerable illustrations are given of meth¬ 
ods of representing—and representing very unmistak¬ 
ably, too—certain thoughts and emotions which, be¬ 
cause of being experienced only in the inaudible and 
invisible mind, need, in order to be made known to oth¬ 
ers, to be translated, as it were, into forms that can be 
seen or heard. It is pointed out, however, that, in no 
instance is the representing sight or sound at all like 
the mental experience which is represented. There 
is no resemblance, for instance, between a questioning 
attitude of mind and an upward inflection; or between 
a threatening attitude and a contracted fist. So we 
could go through the whole list of thoughts and emo¬ 
tions made known through some form of natural or of 
artistic expression, as in music, poetry, painting, sculp¬ 
ture, or architecture, and, tho we might find all of them 
represented suggestively, we could find none of them 


SPIRITUAL WORLD INCONCEIVABLE 177 

presented exactly as they are. If this be so, and if it 
illustrate, as presumably it does, a universal fact with 
reference to the degree in which the spiritual can be 
communicated through the material, how mistaken 
must he be who acts upon the theory that the Scrip¬ 
tures should or can be understood literally? We can 
probably understand and interpret them thus to some 
extent. Almost every word, which originally had more 
or less of a figurative or merely representative meaning, 
becomes apparently literal when it comes to be used 
conventionally with only one meaning. But when we 
consider such words, phrases, and prolonged descrip¬ 
tions of the Scriptures as attempt to describe conditions 
that can never come to be conventionally understood 
because they have never and can never be experienced 
or conceived by mortals, we would better be humble, 
and gratefully accept what is revealed to us upon the 
hypothesis that it is merely suggestive. It is one thing 
to believe that we can derive from the Scriptures 
that which is sufficient to secure our individual sal¬ 
vation—all must believe this or else believe the author 
of them a deceiver—it is an entirely different thing to 
believe that we may be made to receive from them 
anything more than very vague intimations of those 
mysteries which it is impossible to have explained in 
terms of this world. 


CHAPTER IX 


CHRISTIAN DOGMATISM AS AFFECTED BY CONSIDERING 
SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

Conclusions Reached in Preceding Chapter—Confirmation of These 
Afforded by the Scriptures—These Conclusions Are Not Accepted 
by Christians in General—Deleterious Effects of This Manifested 
in Diminished Attendance Upon Church Services—The Church 
Should Remedy This Condition—Origin of Dogmatism, Intoler¬ 
ance, and the Dark Ages—Dogmatism and Intolerance as Irrational 
as Uncharitable—Creeds Should Not Be Made a Test of Christian 
Character — Applied to the Doctrine of Inspiration — Injurious 
Effects of Applying Such a Test in Connection with This Doctrine 
—Same Principle Exemplified with Reference to the Doctrine of 
the Personality of God—The Trinity—The Immaculate Conception 
and Incarnation—The Method of Salvation—The Problem in Salva¬ 
tion—Its Solution in the Work of the Christ—How Dogmatism, 
Tho Based Upon This Solution, Does Harm—Not Only Among 
Christians, but Non-Christians, as Buddhists and Mohammedans 
—Same Principle Applied to Doctrine of Eternal Punishment— 
Certainty with Reference to Spiritual Truth Not Justifiable— 
Illustration of the Practical Evils of This Attitude. 

In accordance with what was said in the preceding 
chapter, it seems neither best nor possible for sacred 
writings to give expression to truth in any other way 
than by that of suggestion—not best because of what 
is required for the development of reason in man; and 
not possible because of the essential differences be¬ 
tween the spiritual and the material, which latter 
furnishes the only means in this world of enabling us 
to interpret that which issues from the former. 

A very slight examination of the history of the 

178 


AMBIGUITY OF SCRIPTURE 


179 


effects of any sacred writings will confirm this concep¬ 
tion of the character of their influence. As was said 
in the Introduction, sacred writings such as the Vedas, 
the Zend-Avesta, the Koran, and the Bible are all 
differently interpreted by different groups of readers. 
“There are sixty distinct sects of Buddhists in Japan,” 
said a Japanese priest to the author; and, as we all 
know, there are almost as many different Christian 
sects in America and England. Yet Quakers and 
Romanists, Unitarians and Episcopalians, Presbyte¬ 
rians and Universalirts, Baptists and Christian Scien¬ 
tists, are all equally ready to argue that their peculiar 
tenets and forms are those that most accurately repre¬ 
sent the truth as exprest in one and the same Bible. 
No additional fact is needed in order to prove that, in 
the text which presents this truth, it is exprest sug¬ 
gestively, not explicitly. If exprest in the latter form, 
rational minds, when studying it, could not draw from 
it so many divergent conclusions. 

Nevertheless, a large number of people seem to think 
otherwise. As applied to Christians, at least, the ma¬ 
jority seem to believe in their hearts, even when they 
try to be the most charitable, that what is termed 
Scriptural truth is something which can be exprest 
explicitly, and that no one can be a Christian in reality 
unless, consciously or unconsciously, he has accepted 
it as thus exprest. One would naturally think that the 
practical result of such a belief—and the belief itself is 
held because this is thought to be its practical result 


180 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOJST 


—would be to cause those influenced by it to unite 
in accepting the Biblical phraseology as it is. But, 
strange to say, the contrary is true. The actual prac¬ 
tical result is to cause the acceptance of the Biblical 
phraseology only so far as it has been interpreted in 
creeds, rituals, and hymns prepared by theologians 
and others who, as a rule, are acknowledged not to have 
been inspired. These persons, acting in accordance 
with what they suppose to be the requirements of the 
human mind, think that they can make the truth of 
inspiration more effective by rendering it more explicit. 
But this is an end that they can not attain without 
adding to the Biblical phraseology very much that is 
originated by themselves. The very nature of that 
which they are undertaking to do necessitates this. 
In other words, the natural effect of their efforts at 
times is to take from Scriptural truth the suggestive 
and inspiring quality which furnishes the foremost 
proof of its spiritual origin. Moreover, after they have 
substituted, so far as they can, materially explicit 
statements in place of those that are spiritually sug¬ 
gestive, there is nothing left for them logically but to 
expect men to receive their products in the only way 
in which explicit statements can be received— i.e. } ex¬ 
plicitly or dogmatically. Having supposed this, the 
next logical step is to try to compel acceptance of these 
through means, as indicated in Chapter X, other than 
those legitimate to an appeal to the thinking faculties 
alone. 


DIMINISHING CHURCH ATTENDANCE 181 


If this supplanting of the expressions of inspiration 
by those of theology, and this compelling of an ac¬ 
ceptance of the latter through physical, moral, social, 
national, or any other kind of force, be erroneous, we 
should expect the results to make this fact clear? Do 
they? One is not unwarranted in giving to this ques¬ 
tion an answer most emphatically affirmative. Some 
months ago, the author heard it stated from a London 
pulpit that the churches of that city, including Sunday- 
schools, are attended by four-fifths of the children, but 
by only one-fifth of the adult population. The state¬ 
ment set him to thinking. He concluded that this con¬ 
dition must be owing to the fact that certain methods 
used by the Church appeal more effectively to children 
—or are supposed by their guardians to do this—than 
they appeal to their elders. Can this be so; and if it be 
so, what are these methods? So far as concerns their 
general character, they must, of course, be such as are 
used to influence sentiment and conduct through first in¬ 
fluencing thought. Does the Church use any methods of 
influencing thought which, owing to their nature, are 
effective with the young, and are not effective with 
the grown? A moment’s reflection will convince us 
that such methods are used; and will reveal to us also 
what they are. A child is obliged, and therefore is 
accustomed, to have others think for him. A man is 
obliged, and therefore is accustomed, to think for him¬ 
self. As a consequence, the child, when he goes to 
church, naturally accepts what has been thought out 



182 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF 1NSPIRATIOH 


for him by others. The man does not naturally do 
this. There has been a change in the demands of his 
mind. Yet the Church has not changed its methods— 
i.e. } not essentially. It gives the man less teaching and 
more preaching; but often in the latter, and almost 
always in its confessions, rituals, and hymns, there are 
implications that his first duty is to accept the results 
of the thinking of others. Does not this fact account 
for the absence from Church of large numbers, especially 
in cases in which, as often happens, they are so ex¬ 
ceptionally serious in their characters that their lack 
of interest in it can not rightly be ascribed to any con¬ 
stitutional or acquired lack of interest in that which 
makes for the general welfare? Is it strange that some 
of these appear to the author, at least, to be honest 
when they argue that they ought not to seem to sanc¬ 
tion, even by their presence*, gatherings in which their 
most clearly God-given rights are ignored, if not denied? 

The arguments through which a man reaches such 
conclusions may be fallacious. But is it not the duty 
of the Church to remove, as fully as possible, the grounds 
on which they are based? In the Middle Ages, w T hen 
few were educated, or allowed to choose their own ways 
of work or of government, or their own employers or 
rulers, the present traditional methods of the Church 
and of its officials accorded with those of other con¬ 
temporary institutions. But is it so to-day? If not, 
the sooner the fact is recognized, the better. Can it 
be recognized in such ways as to preserve the Church’s 


FREE THOUGHT NOT IRRELIGIOUS 1 &> 


essential character? Can sufficient truth to attain the 
ends of the Christian system be held and communicated 
in such ways as to allow every spiritually minded man 
the right to think for himself? Or—to express the 
thought in another form—can we, in order to meet the 
exigencies of our own day, carry out the principles un¬ 
derlying the Protestant Reformation to their logical 
conclusions and make the reform complete? We cer¬ 
tainly can, if there be sufficient warrant for accepting 
the theory presented in the previous chapters of this 
book. W r e can not, if obliged to accept the theory 
held by most of the churches of our time to the effect 
that Christian truth— i.e., the truth which must be 
accepted by all whose intellectual opinions can be 
termed Christian—can be, and has been, exprest in 
explicit formulas which men have prepared in order to 
interpret it. The reasons for these two statements are 
evident. The theory that truth can be sufficient^ ex¬ 
prest when left indefinite and suggestive, necessarily 
carries with it the inference that a man’s thought can 
be stimulated in its sources so as to move toward the 
right, even when left free to develop itself according 
to the dictates of his own intelligence. The theory 
that truth must be exprest definitely and explicitly 
necessarily carries with it the opposite inference, name¬ 
ly, that a man’s thought will not move toward the right 
unless it be developed in accordance with the domina¬ 
ting influence of some external constraint. 

Let us consider, for a little, this latter, which may be 



184 TILE PSYCIIOL OGY OF INSPIRA TI OH 

said to be the theory most prevalent at present; and, 
first, something with reference to its origin. Concern¬ 
ing this, ecclesiastical history does not leave us in 
doubt. Creeds originated in the efforts of men to 
obviate the supposed evils arising from the differences 
of opinion natural to the human mind. After the 
death of Jesus, the apostles and their followers began to 
think about that which he had said to them. This was 
right on their part. It was doing that for which their 
minds had been made. But, after a little, some of 
them began to fear that certain logical conclusions 
drawn by others would prove detrimental to the Chris¬ 
tian system. What then? How should this condition 
have been met? Wrong thinking should have been 
corrected—not so?—by right thinking. The only ra¬ 
tional way in which to treat one who questions truth 
is to try to have him answered. This seems to have 
been the method at first adopted in the Church. When 
the Apostle Peter made the mistake—shown by the 
history of the Church to have been a mistake—of sup¬ 
posing that all Gentiles becoming Christians should be 
circumcised— i.e., should first become Jews—the Apostle 
Paul says (Gal. 2; 7-21), “I withstood him, to the face,” 
and then quotes the arguments that he used. Later, 
however, Christians changed their methods. Instead of 
trying to convert, they adopted the thoroughly human 
method of trying to compel their antagonists. Those 
with one opinion claimed to be the only genuine Chris¬ 
tians, and excommunicated those with other opinions. 



RELIGIO US INTOLERANCE 


185 


At first the former merely refused to have dealings with 
the latter; but this meant much in an age when already 
few pagans had dealings with Christians. A century 
or so later, when certain of those associated with one or 
another Christian body attained political power, this 
power was used against its opponents. Finally, after 
two or three more centuries, those whose opinions hap¬ 
pened to be reenforced by the weapons of civil authority 
succeeded in silencing, through persecution, most of 
those inclined to think for themselves, as well as in 
accustoming almost all others not to think at all. 
Then, for well-nigh eight centuries, the world had ex¬ 
perience of the Dark Ages. 

It is humiliating to some of us, but it is a fact, that 
these were owing not to paganism so much as to the 
form of Christianity that then prevailed. We can 
recognize, now, that the methods of the latter were as 
irrational as they were uncharitable, excusable, if at 
all, on no other ground than that of the limited mental 
and social experience of the ecclesiastical officials. Ex¬ 
ternal pressure can no more turn the current of a man’s 
thought than a hand can turn the course of the wind; 
nor would it be possible in any church for a sinner, if 
first induced to believe it to be a sin to follow his own 
convictions, to be converted from the error of his ways, 
no matter how thoroughly he might feel convinced of 
it. The Reformation brought a change, but not a 
complete one. Many still believe that truth can be com¬ 
municated through force—not through physical force 


186 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


necessarily—in most countries sects are now allowed— 
but through moral, social, or national force—force which 
excludes a man, because he differs from others in re¬ 
ligious opinion, from their circles or privileges in eccle¬ 
siastical, domestic, or political life. 

This book has not been written to show that any one 
of these creeds is true or untrue, but to show that the 
use of all is unwise, so far as they are employed as tests 
to indicate who is or is not a Christian. This is so be¬ 
cause the indefinite expressions of the Scriptures which 
the creeds seek to render definite are just what are 
needed for the practical influence which Christianity is 
intended to have upon the minds and lives of men in 
general. In order to show this, let us look at certain 
subjects of thought which the Scriptures present in¬ 
definitely and the creeds definitely. 

It is natural to begin with what the Scriptures say 
of themselves— i.e., with what is called the doctrine of 
inspiration. With reference to this as to other sub¬ 
jects, some Biblical passages seem to be explicit. For 
instance; we read in Rev. 22; 18, “I testify unto every 
man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this 
book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall 
add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, ” 
and a like imprecation upon him who “ Shall take away 
from the words.” It is by no means certain, however, 
that these statements refer to any but the Book of 
the Revelation, or that, if they refer to the whole Bible, 
they are applicable to anything more than to the pro- 



D 0 CTRINE OF INSPIRA TION 


187 


duction, by addition or subtraction, of spurious Scrip¬ 
ture—of that which is represented to be inspired when 
it is known not to be so. In view of the interests in¬ 
volved, most of us probably would agree that the 
punishment threatened the author of this is not too great. 
The most unequivocal statement with reference to in¬ 
spiration in the Bible is in 2 Timothy, 3; 16, “All Scrip¬ 
ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable 
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
in righteousness.” Is there any one who believes in 
any form of divine inspiration who can not accept this 
statement exactly as it stands? But human minds are 
so constituted that, the moment such a passage is read, 
they begin to speculate about it. They ask how does 
the inspiration of the Bible differ from other forms of 
inspiration, as in the so-called false religions, or in re¬ 
ligious or secular poetry? They ask what is the method 
of the inspiration—is it accomplished through divine 
superintendence, or direction, or suggestion?—when 
a man is in a normal or in an elevated condition of 
mind?—with his powers acting consciously or uncon¬ 
sciously? Or they ask what is the extent of the in¬ 
spiration? Does it apply to the statements of physical 
or historical facts?—or only to the subjects which these 
facts illustrate, with the precepts that accompany 
them?—to the style and the words, or only to the sub¬ 
stance and the sense? As long as minds exist, men 
who use them properly can not avoid arguing such 
questions, and adhering to the conclusions to which 



188 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOX 


their arguments seem logically to lead. But are they 
justified in making the acceptance of their own con¬ 
clusions a test of orthodoxy—of that which a man, if a 
Christian, should believe? Does not the very fact that 
they are conclusions prove that they can not be reached 
except by one whose mind has passed through the 
processes through which they were reached by the first 
who proclaimed them? If so, such conclusions can be 
communicated only through argument. They can not 
be communicated through authority or force, physical 
or moral. For any church to attempt to communicate 
them thus is to attempt the impossible. It may, 
indeed, secure outward assent, but to try to obtain this 
from those who can not give inward consent is to try 
to habituate large numbers of such as can not avoid 
thinking for themselves to lip-service and hypocrisy. 

But how about the effect of such methods upon those 
who do not think for themselves, or, at least, not suffi¬ 
ciently to study the subject? Strange as it may seem, 
the methods when used with these appear to have no 
influence at all, or else one that is harmful. Chil¬ 
dren need theories with reference to inspiration no more 
than with reference to other things. Grown people, 
whatever they may be told, are really influenced by 
inspiration only so far as it inspires. With them any¬ 
thing inspiring through a material agency, like a word, 
owes its influence to the fact that the statement which 
appeals to the outward material sense appeals also to 
the inward mental sense. As the Bible says, “the 


DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


189 


things of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned” 
(1 Cor. 2; 14); “The Spirit itself beareth witness with 
our spirit” (Rom. 8; 16). If anything in the Bible 
fail to appeal to this inward sense, a man may declare 
and fancy that he believes it inspired, but it does not 
affect him as if it were so. For instance, few of us, 
probably, have ever known any man—no matter how 
orthodox his views upon inspiration—who, merely be¬ 
cause of certain passages in the imprecatory psalms, 
was influenced to believe that vindictiveness and re¬ 
venge are right. In some way, unconsciously to him¬ 
self, he has seemed to recognize that to accept the 
apparent meaning in these cases would involve a mis¬ 
understanding and misinterpretation of the mind of the 
Spirit. On the contrary, few of us, probably, have 
ever known any one—no matter how unorthodox his 
views upon inspiration—whose spirit has not at once 
yielded assent to most of the ideals exprest in the pre¬ 
cepts and embodied in the life of Jesus. The truth 
seems to be that the Spirit does not need the dictating 
of human teachers robed in the gowns of theologians to 
the extent that some suppose, being abundantly self- 
sufficient when appealing to the human spirit without 
their aid. Nor when the book of God is in the hands of 
the people is it necessary to affirm that all who are to 
be rightly influenced by it must accept every phrase 
of it as infallibly correct, literally as well as suggest¬ 
ively. To say this is to assert what few honest men 
can investigate long enough to be certain that they 


190 THE PS YCHOL 0 GY OF INSPIRA TION 


believe, and what very many must reject because the 
surface-facts do not seem to sustain it. Even if such 
men accept the theory nominally, they can not accept 
it as a result of their own thinking, and therefore not 
rationally. Anything accepted not rationally is ac¬ 
cepted irrationally, and if, at the same time, it be 
revered, it is accepted superstitiously. Even thus ac¬ 
cepted, the Bible may still appeal to reason in part, 
because it is full of thought; but it will appeal in part 
also to the irrational, and therefore have something of 
the same demoralizing influence—tho, perhaps, almost 
infinitely less in degree—as is exerted on the pagan by 
his fetish. 

Now let us pass on to the doctrine of the personality 
of God. As all know, many make much of this, argu¬ 
ing it from the innumerable passages in the Scriptures 
in which the personal pronoun is used in addressing 
the Divine Being and in speaking of him. Besides this, 
it is argued that not to recognize his personality lessens 
one’s sense of his Fatherhood and sympathy, as well as 
of dependence upon him and responsibility to him. 
There is no doubt about the force of these arguments, 
or of any man’s right to present them to others. But 
how about influencing one to accept the results of the 
arguments by making them a test of religious charac¬ 
ter and eligibility for church-membership? There are 
those whose conceptions of God are best exprest in 
language like this: “In him we live and move and 
have our being” (Acts 17; 28); “Whither shall I go 



DOCTRINE OF A PERSONAL GOD 191 

from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy pres¬ 
ence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if 
I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there ” (Ps. 
139; 8, 9), and “One day is with the Lord as a thousand 
years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3; 8). 
Some who hold such conceptions find it difficult to 
reconcile them with the limitations which seem neces¬ 
sary for personality. Who can say that their views 
introduce into thought an element of mystery greater 
than the circumstances warrant? Who can say that 
this mystery seems too great to allow their minds to 
receive truth sufficient for the practical purposes of 
Christianity? To think that God can not be limited 
as in personality is not the same as to think that, 
through imagination, the same Being can not experi¬ 
ence what personality is, or, through inspiration and 
incarnation, represent it to human beings. If what is 
conceived of Him be inclusive of all that personality 
might be or do, what more is necessary? Besides this, 
is it not possible for a too narrow conception of divinity 
to do harm? What else can be affirmed of theories 
attributing to God the passions and motives of human 
beings; or of theories tending toward deism— i.e., the 
conception of a God existing apart from nature, phys¬ 
ical or human; or tending toward idolatry; i.e., the con¬ 
ception of a God existing in a part of nature, as in a 
picture once seen over a shrine in southern Germany? 
It represented Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, and under it 
was inscribed, “The Trinity.” 


192 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

Let us take up, now, this doctrine of the Trinity, in¬ 
cluding that of the nature of the Christ. The only 
passage in the Bible explicitly affirming the doctrine 
is the one in 1 John, 5; 7: “For there are three that 
bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the 
Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” Without ex¬ 
ception, it is said, the best scholars admit that this 
passage is an interpolation. It is not in the original 
text. This fact, however, does not disprove the doc¬ 
trine, but merely removes it from the sphere of explicit 
statement to that of suggestion. The suggestion is de¬ 
rived from observing that, in the Bible, the personal 
pronoun is used when quoting, addressing, or mention¬ 
ing each of the three—the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost; and that each is reported as influencing, 
through word or deed, each of the others. Besides 
this, certain philosophers, noticeably, in our day, those 
of the Hegelian school, argue the impossibility of con¬ 
ceiving of a deity except as conscious of self, of non¬ 
self, and of a connection between these two, which, in¬ 
terpreted in terms of theology, means God in the 
spiritual, or the Father, God in the natural, or the Son, 
and God in the connection between the two, or the Holy 
Ghost. See also what is said on this subject on page 
129. But however Scriptural or logical such con¬ 
clusions may be, few men are exegetes or philosophers. 
Why need the Church insist upon having all accept their 
conclusions? There certainly are reasons why some 
should, at least, hesitate to do so. The word person , 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 


193 


as applied to a member of the Trinity, does not mean 
exactly the same as when applied to an earthly being; 
and a man who recognizes something inexact in the 
word may be merely trying to be true to the operations 
of his own mind. Moreover, the word unity , as applied 
to the Trinity, does not mean exactly the same as when 
applied in material relations. At most, it can mean 
only spiritual unity. But what is spiritual unity? 
No human being can comprehend this. He can merely 
apprehend what it may be through using an illustra¬ 
tion from analogy. If it were possible for several 
human beings to think, feel, and will alike, we should 
say that they were animated by unity of spirit. But 
some one reminds us that this is not a fair illustration, 
because the unity of the Godhead is supposed to be 
organic. What then? There are those who suppose 
that, owing to subtile conditions existing in the occult 
sphere, all spiritual union, even that between men, is 
organic. But this supposition can not be proved. No; 
neither can the supposition with reference to the 
method of the unity of the Godhead. So long as the 
general fact of Spiritual unity is admitted, need—not 
does, but need—the doctrine of the Trinity mean more 
than this? Is anything more demanded to cause men 
to recognize all that is claimed of the Christ as repre¬ 
senting the character of God in his dealings with men, 
or all that is claimed of the influence of the Spirit as 
coming from God? Of course some will argue—and, 
if they believe it, should argue—that more is demanded; 


194 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


but does this justify them in forcing conviction, in or 
out of the Church, through modes of influence other 
than arguments? Few in the churches have any clear 
view of the meaning of the Trinity; and the endeavor 
to demand of men a clear view has done much harm, 
not only to those whom it has kept out of the churches, 
and of all connection with Christianity, but to many 
who, after joining Christian churches, have found them¬ 
selves doubting their creed. Besides this, the em¬ 
phasis given the doctrine has been harmful on account 
of false conclusions drawn from it. Theologians tell 
us that this emphasis does not interfere with the 
acceptance of the doctrine of the humanity of the 
Christ; but practically it does. The Mass suggests less 
fellowship with men than did his Last Supper. Again, 
notice the following in the prayer of the Christ for his 
disciples (John 17; 21) “that they all may be one, as 
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also 
may be one in us”; and again, in verse 22, “The glory 
which thou gavest me I have given them, that they 
may be one even as we are one.” How can this prayer 
be well explained so long as a church so emphasizes 
the unity of the Christ with God as to exclude the pos¬ 
sibility of the conception of any analogous unity be¬ 
tween the Christ and men? Can there be any doubt, 
either, that there is a direct connection between the 
unwarranted exaltation of the Christ in the Mass—by 
which is meant the imitation of the services of both 
the Jewish and pagan temples introduced into the wor- 


THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 


195 


ship at the altar—and the unwarranted degradation of 
manhood, as witnessed in the denial and suppression 
of social, educational, and civil, as well as religious, 
rights, which have characterized all countries in which 
the unreformed churches have had unopposed sway.* 
Is it not significant that the recent changes in the di¬ 
rections of freedom and enlightenment in some of these 
latter countries have been accompanied by a distinct 
lessening of the influence of the Church? 

But how is it, some one may ask, with those doctrines 
so clearly connected with that of the Trinity—with 
those that concern the immaculate conception and the 
incarnation?—are these, too, stated in the Bible only 
suggestively? Most certainly they are; and in a sense 
still more apparent than is true of the doctrines al¬ 
ready considered. It is true that, in the Scriptures, 
the Christ is repeatedly termed the Son of God, and 
that his coming as such is represented as having been 
foretold, and as having been voluntary on his own 
part. But associated with these representations we 
have, in the first chapter of Matthew, what, in the first 
verse, is stated to be “the generation of Jesus Christ,”f 


* Contrast merely the percentages of illiteracy in certain countries of Europe, 
controlled respectively by the adherents of the reformed and of the unreformed 
churches. The figures are taken from Appleton’s Universal Cyclopedia for 1906. 


German Empire, 0.11 Netherlands, 5.40 

Sweden and Norway, 0.11 England, 5.80 


Russia, 70.80 
Portugal, 79. 
Servia, 86. 


Denmark, 0.54 
Finland, 1.60 
Scotland, 3.57 


Italy, 38.90 
Greece, 45. 
Spain, 68.10 


Rumania, 89 


t The ecclesiastical explanation of this is that it refers to legal parentage, not 
to paternity. Yet the reading of Matt. 1; 16, preferred by W. C. Allen in his 


196 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

What is it? It is the genealogy of Joseph, and of him 
alone. The writer of this genealogy thought either that 
it was important for us to believe Jesus to have been 
the son of Mary alone, or he did not think so. If he 
had thought it important, he would not have given us 
the genealogy of Joseph alone, or at all. He gave us 
this. Therefore, we must conclude that he did not 
think the belief important. Now if, in the perplexity 
in which this first verse of the New Testament naturally 
plunges us, we recall one fact, we may have the 
perplexity lessened, at least a little. The Scriptures 
are constantly attributing to God things that are done 
by men, and rightly, too; for if there be a God, he must 
work through man as well as through material nature. 
If we bear this in mind, we shall perceive that it need 
make no practical difference in the effect upon our 
lives whether we consider Jesus to have been miracu¬ 
lously conceived, or merely at the time of his birth made 
what he was by the Spirit; or, in connection with one or 
both of these, or even with neither, taken possession of 
by the Spirit, or, as the theosophists say, a Spirit at 
one with God, at the time of his baptism and induction 
into the ministry, as indicated in Matt. 3; 16: “And 
Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out 
of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened unto 
him” (not necessarily unto everybody) “and he saw 
the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting 


“Critical and Exegetical Commentary” on this Gospel, is that of the Sinaitic 
Syrian version, which is, “ Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary, a virgin, begat 
Jesus, who is called Christ.” 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 


197 


upon him; and lo, a voice from heaven saying, This 
is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” All 
these theories involve the conception of a man inspired 
from the highest spiritual source; one of the three can 
be accepted by any one who believes in any form of 
inspiration, from that represented in immaculate con¬ 
ception to that reported in psychic research. It is 
not absolutely necessary, either, that one should have 
more than the last conception, in order to receive the 
full effects of the work of the Christ. If his words and 
works, as recorded and developed historically, appeal 
to a man as manifesting the highest qualities of spiri¬ 
tual life, this man will be forced—he can not avoid it— 
to recognize the Christ as the representative on earth 
of divine life. What more than this simple recognition 
is needed for the practical results and purposes of the 
Christian religion? To say that such recognition is 
sufficient need not prevent those whose minds require 
more from accepting the most extreme views and 
arguing others into accepting them. But it does tend 
to prevent the use of the machinery of the Church in 
order to force all men to accept these views. In pre¬ 
venting this, it tends to prevent also the harm which 
the Church may do through such a course. What is 
this harm? The causing of hundreds of thousands to 
reject Christianity entirely, because they have been 
taught to think that the whole system rests upon what 
they conceive to be a myth borrowed from heathen¬ 
dom—a myth because it is something which no one can 


198 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


now prove; and borrowed, because a tale exactly like it is 
told of many of the founders of many other religions.* 
The recognition of the sufficiency of the broader view 
would prevent, too, that lessening of the uniqueness of 
the work of the Christ which seems necessarily to ac¬ 
company the ascribing of immaculateness not only to 
Mary, the mother of Jesus, but also, as among some, to 
Anne, the supposed mother of Mary. 

Now let us pass on to consider what the Church repre¬ 
sents as to the nature of the influence exerted by each 
member of the Trinity upon the salvation of man. 
God, the Father, we are told, created men, knowing 
from the beginning that many w r ould be lost. But he 
elected some to salvation. That he might save these, 
yet satisfy his inherent sense of justice, it was arranged 
that the Christ should come to earth and, taking upon 
himself the punishment that men deserved, should 
suffer and die, tho not eternally. As a result, God w^as 
enabled to send his Spirit to dwell with those for whom 
the Christ died, and to sanctify and redeem them. 
Several of us probably have knowm personally some one 
who has declared his belief that no one can be saved 

* This is a statement which no student of history will deny. According to 
Greek or Roman mythology, ^Ethlius, Amphion, Apollo, Areas, Aroclus, ^Eolus, 
Bacchus, Hercules, Mercury, Prometheus, and others were all sons of Jupiter 
by a mortal mother; and, at least, Perseus and Romulus, by a virgin-mother. 
A divine father and a virgin-mother were claimed also for the Indian Krishna 
and Buddha, the Siamese Codom, the Chinese Lao-tsze, the Egyptian Horus, 
the Persian Zoroaster, and others. The early Christian writer, Justin Martyr, 
in his First Apology written about one hundred and twenty years after the 
time of the Christ, admits all this. In Chapter XXI he says, “You know how 
many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to Jupiter”; and in Chapter XXII, 
“If we even affirm that he was born of a virgin, we accept this in common with 
what you accept of Perseus,” etc. 


THE PLAN OF SALVATION 


199 


unless consciously, or, in some vague way, uncon¬ 
sciously, he has accepted the whole of this doctrine as 
thus exprest. The doctrine is undoubtedly suggested 
in the Bible. But—and this explains the use of the 
word suggested rather than stated —the opposite of the 
doctrine is just as clearly suggested. There is no hint 
of this doctrine in the parable of the prodigal son, or in 
such a passage as in Acts 10; 35, “In every nation he 
that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted 
with him”; and merely a hint in passages more to the 
point, like 1 Cor. 15; 22, “As in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive.” There seem to be 
only two conclusions which can be drawn from these 
discrepancies: first, that we should not be too certain 
that the view conforming to either side of the question 
is unqualifiedly correct, and so should not be too dog¬ 
matic ; and, second, that both views probably represent 
some single spiritual principle which the limitations 
of human language have caused minds having a vague 
conception of this principle to represent in phrases 
or figures which, if interpreted too literally, are mis¬ 
leading. 

The problem of salvation seems to involve this ques¬ 
tion—how can a man whose character is naturally 
formed and developed by the material be developed also 
by the spiritual, and ultimately changed into a spirit? 
That man is naturally developed by the material we all 
know. He is born with a material body. He learns 
by using eyes and ears upon material surroundings. 



200 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOX 


He thinks—clearly at least—because of material organs, 
which can articulate words with which to formulate 
and separate his thoughts. He does his duty because 
he recognizes his relationships to material objects and 
being about him. When we consider how spiritual 
influence can be exerted upon him, it would seem that, 
according to this law of his nature, such influence, too, 
should be exerted in part through the material. If 
the object be to develop spiritual character, he should 
be able, if possible, to see this spiritual character em¬ 
bodied, and exerting influence, through a material 
body. 

It is exactly such a requirement that appears to be 
fulfilled in the person of the Christ and of Christlike 
men. In the case of the Christ, however, it seemed 
necessary to show not only the presence of the spiritual 
in the material, but also the supremacy of the one over 
the other. How could this be done better than by a 
life in which all desires connected with the material, in 
so far as they interfered with the spiritual, were denied 
indulgence, and finally sacrificed, as in the death upon 
the cross. Nor does this conception of the influence 
of the Spirit as exerted externally through example, 
and therefore exerted, as it were, indirectly, interfere 
with a conception of its influence exerted internally 
and, as it were, directly. So far as we know, in this 
world, the two methods usually accompany each other. 
What is seen to be done by a hero upon a battle-field 
causes his followers to catch, as we say, his spirit. 


ALL RELIGIONS SIMILAR 


201 


What is known of the life and death of the Christ causes 
exactly the result indicated in such passages as in John 
12; 32, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all 
men unto me”; or in John 16; 7, “If I go not away the 
Comforter” ( i.e ., the Holy Ghost, the Inspirer) “will 
not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him 
unto you.” 

It is apparently by carrying to what seem logical 
conclusions, not the spiritual significance, but the ma¬ 
terial figures representing some such primary principles 
as these that theology has built up its systems, going 
into details with reference to the functions of each per¬ 
son of the Trinity, the nature of divine sovereignty, 
foreknowledge, election, effectual calling, perseverance 
of the saints, and so on. A logical mind is made, of 
course, to be logical. It is merely exercising an inborn 
right when it is so; but has it a right to use other agen¬ 
cies than argument to cause other minds to accept its 
conclusions? Are not primary principles about all that 
one can expect the ordinary Christian to recognize? Are 
they not all that the great majority of the Christians 
about us actually do recognize? If so, to insist upon 
having all recognize what only a few are, even in¬ 
tellectually, prepared to accept, is practically need¬ 
less. Besides this, it is harmful. Hundreds of thou¬ 
sands of sermons have been preached in many of our 
churches to show that people need not become fa¬ 
talists, or doubt the love of God, or embrace any 
one of a dozen other conclusions detrimental to 


202 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

Christian life, merely because certain doctrines of 
the Church seem to tend toward these conclusions. 
Why convey the impression then that it is essential 
to hold the doctrines from which such conclusions 
are derived? Of course, we must all have our own 
theories concerning religion; but it is better to keep 
opinion to ourselves than to be selfishly opinionated. 
We should all be logical; but we should also bear 
in mind that logic is merely a method, a method too 
that, if applied in certain cases, may, like light, bring 
others, if not ourselves, more of rottenness than of 
ripeness. We should all be alert to correct every de¬ 
formity in the Christianity about us; but we should 
remember also that a prudent surgeon drops his scalpel 
when it seems to imperil life. Too much in the theory, 
the logic, and the activity of Christianity, as developed 
in our times, not only fails to influence for good many 
who think that they believe in it, but causes many, 
without good reason, to think that they do not believe 
in it. 

Among this latter class may be included earnest 
seekers for truth not only in Christian, but in non- 
Christian countries. “In one part of the service in 
your temple/ 7 said the author once to an intelligent 
Buddhist priest of Japan, “gates were opened in front 
of a small shrine in which was an image of the Buddha. 
Were your people worshiping it 77 ? “No, 77 was an¬ 

swered; “the Buddha is known not to be present ex¬ 
cept in spirit. 77 “But, 77 said the questioner again, 


ALL RELIGIONS SIMILAR 


203 


“the words used called upon the Buddha to help them.” 
“Certainly/ 7 came the reply; “the Buddha represents 
the highest attainment possible to the human intellect. 
Any one more intelligent than we are is naturally 
wiser. He can help us. Besides this, in a normal de¬ 
velopment, any one with the highest intelligence must 
have not only more knowledge, but more breadth of 
view, magnanimity, spirituality, as you Christians say. 
The Buddha helps us spiritually. 77 Again, a Moham¬ 
medan once, when trying to explain to the author the 
conception at the basis of his religious belief, used this 
illustration, “If I do what you want of me in my coun¬ 
try, by and by I may go to your country. There I 
may need work, possibly food and clothing. Then I 
may find you, and, because of what I have done for 
you here, you may introduce me, say, to your father, 
and he will help me. Mohammed introduces us to 
God. 77 Possibly the adherent of some other religion 
might use somewhat similar illustrations to indicate 
his conception of the work done for him by its leader. 
What is important to notice is that, when we get 
down to the bases of these religions, there is not so 
much difference between them and Christianity as we 
sometimes suppose. Merely because human nature is 
everywhere the same, all men are apt to believe in 
some form of mediation that brings both intellectual 
and spiritual help. They may not call the agent of 
this “the Christ, 77 or “the Lord 77 ; but we should not 
forget that it was the Christ himself who said (Matt. 


204 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 

7; 21), “Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, 
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that 
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” If 
the thinkers of the world, either in Christian or in non- 
Christian communities, are ever to be brought into com¬ 
plete harmony with the Church, it will be because of 
its recognition of the full bearing of this principle upon 
doctrine and practise. 

One word more now about that from which salvation 
through the Christ is supposed to save men. Some 
deem it to be from what is termed eternal punishment. 
But what does this mean? The Scriptures can not be 
said to do any more than suggest the answer. If the 
future state be one of progress, the man who has failed 
to avail himself of his advantages in this life will be 
eternally punished if eternally kept behind the degree 
of development attained by the man who has lived 
differently. But does the Greek term translated eter¬ 
nal indicate what we mean when we use the English 
term? Many scholars think not, and, even as applied 
to the English term, if by the “temporal” be meant the 
“material,” why need the “eternal” mean any more 
than the “spiritual”? Even the mention, in Mark 9; 
44, of the hell “where their worm dieth not and the 
fire is not quenched” is equivocal. The only place in 
which these conditions could be fulfilled literally would 
be in a material world like our own. But if it be a 
description of a material world, then future punish¬ 
ment means reincarnation. This would imply some 


ETERNAL PUNISHMENT 


205 


hope for those who experience it, as well as a larger 
hope for those who, having experienced here what it 
is for spirits to be in prison, wish to avoid any further 
experience of the same kind. Perhaps, on the whole, 
some such belief would be consoling. If we could think 
that, in our present life, we are being punished for sin 
in a former state, many of the mysteries of the world 
would be solved; and some of us would be much more 
grateful than we seem to be at present to recognize that 
we are not worse off than we are. But all these sub¬ 
jects are—why should they not remain?—subjects of 
speculation. No one view of them is necessary for the 
practical purposes of Christianity. In his saner mo¬ 
ments, every man believes that all sin is, must be, pun¬ 
ished by its influence upon his conscience or his sur¬ 
roundings, either in this world or in the next. Why 
should the Church not be satisfied with this general 
belief? Why should the harm be done which follows 
when many are led to think God unjust, while yet also 
a being to be worshiped and imitated; to say noth¬ 
ing about the harm done when the officials of a church 
attempt, for a compensation, to furnish a certificate to 
be accepted in the next world in place of character, as 
if, forsooth, it were not true that “the Lord knoweth 
them that are his”? (2 Tim. 2; 19). 

The thought that is suggested to the author just here 
would, of itself, furnish no slight confirmation—if he 
still needed any—of the importance of the general 
subject treated in this book. The thought is this: 



206 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

that very many of his readers will suppose that, by 
admitting the possibility of the truth of many of the 
theological tenets that have been mentioned, he is 
virtually arguing their probability, and even affirming 
their certainty. In reality, however, he is doing, and 
intending to do, nothing of the kind. But notice the 
proof that the existence of the supposition furnishes 
of the fact that, as a rule, men who discuss spiritual 
truth are expected to do this in the spirit of the prop¬ 
agandist, absolutely certain that one peculiar view is 
right, and that the world is doing wrong in not recog¬ 
nizing it to be such. Why is it that men appear so 
certain with reference to spiritual truth? The reason 
must be either in the nature of this truth or in them¬ 
selves. It can not be in the nature of the truth, be¬ 
cause, according to all serious thinkers, as well as 
writers of innumerable theological books, nothing is 
more difficult than it to understand or to apply. 
The reason for the apparent certainty must be, there¬ 
fore, in the men themselves. What is it in men that 
causes them to claim to know with certainty that which, 
owing to its nature, can not be known with certainty? 
However we may reply to this; whether we ascribe the 
condition to individual self-esteem, pretense, or hypoc¬ 
risy, or to the associative instincts of partizanship 
exerted in behalf of some defensive or aggressive 
church, the answer is not creditable to human nature. 
No man is dealing fairly with his fellows who is adding 
the weight of his own personality to the side of the 


CERTAINTY IN RELIGIOUS OPINIONS 207 

scale in which he is supposed to be putting only the 
truth. When will the millions of those who are con¬ 
tinually doing this—some consciously and some un¬ 
consciously—recognize how immeasurably they might 
advance the spiritual enlightenment of those about 
them by acknowledging the exact facts with reference 
to the way in which they regard their creeds. How 
are these regarded ? IIow does faith regard any tenets 
that are at the basis of its own actions ? As certain ? 
No; if it did this it would be knowledge, not faith. 
It regards them as most highly and rationally probable, 
which is the same thing as to say that it accepts them as 
suggestively but not indisputably true. This being 
the case, how unfortunate it is that almost every new 
theological treatise, ritual or even hymnal, should seem 
to vie with the last in emphasizing that unfair trait 
in human nature which practically misrepresents the 
conditions which it professes to express! 

This subject has some very practical bearings. The 
most important of these is this—that wherever an effort 
is made to advance any kind of truth through methods 
that involve untruth, as when, in a sermon or hymn, 
something is asserted to be certain which is felt to be 
merely probable—then, together with the influence of 
the truth, there is always conveyed some influence also 
of the untruth. Several years ago, the author was 
traveling on an ocean steamer. One Sunday evening 
the passengers w T ere asked to assemble in the saloon 
for a service of praise. They were told that a fellow 



208 TIIE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


passenger, a young Hebrew student of music, with an 
exceptionally fine voice, had promised to lead the sing¬ 
ing. When they came together, they found that those 
in charge of the music had not selected hymns in which 
all could honestly join—hymns of general praise*— 
but those giving dogmatic expression to the most 
distinctively orthodox Christian doctrines. Think of 
singing, in such a service, a hymn of adoration to 
“God in three persons, blessed Trinity,” or hymn 170 
in the Presbyterian Hymnal, “God of God, Light of 
Light, lo, he abhors not the virgin’s womb, very God, 
Begotten not created, 0 come let us now adore him.” 
Yet probably these people, as lacking in Christian 

♦Like those beginning with the lines, “My God, how endless is thy love”; 
“Sweet is the work, my God, my king”; “Lord of all being, throned afar”; 
“Nearer, my God, to thee”; “The spacious firmament on high”; “All people 
that on earth do dwell”; “O bless the Lord, my soul”; “O worship the Lord, all 
glorious above”; “Through all the changing scenes of life”; “O God, our help 
in ages past”; “Begin, my tongue, some heavenly theme”; “When all thy 
mercies, O my God”; “Gracious Spirit, love divine”; “He that goeth forth 
with weeping”; “Teach me, my God, my king”; “Father, whate'er of earthly 
bliss”; “I love to steal away”; “Hail to the brightness of Zion’s glad morning”; 
“Come, ye disconsolate”; “To-morrow, Lord, is thine”; “Gently, Lord, O 
gently lead us”; “My soul, be on thy guard”; “The King of Love my shepherd 
is”; “God is my strong salvation”; “While thee I seek protecting power”; 
“Guide me, O thou great Jehovah”; “Lead, kindly light”; “In heavenly love 
abiding”; “Thy way, not mine, O Lord”; “He leadeth me, O blessed thought”; 
“God is the refuge of his saints”; “My God, my Father, while I stray”; “God 
moves in a mysterious way”; “The Lord my shepherd is”; “Your harps, ye 
trembling saints”; “My times are in thy hands”; “How gentle God’s com¬ 
mands”; “My God, the spring of all my joys”; “My God, is any hour so sweet?” 
“Prayer is the soul’s sincere desire”; “O thou that hearest prayer”; “As pants 
the heart for cooling streams”; “I do not ask, O Lord, that life may be”; “My 
God, permit me not to be”; “’Tis by the faith of joys to come”; “Beyond the 
smiling and the weeping”; “One sweetly solemn thought”; “O mother, dear 
Jerusalem”; “Forever with the Lord”; “O, where shall rest be found?” “Brief 
life is here our portion”; “Jerusalem, the golden"; “There is a land of pure 
delight”; “O God, beneath thy guiding hand”; “O Lord of hosts, almighty 
King”; “God bless our native land”; “My country, ’tis of thee”; “Day by day, 
the manna fell,” etc. 


IRRELIGION IN WORSHIP 


209 


courtesy as in character, thought that they were doing 
a religious deed in making this young Hebrew, on ac¬ 
count, too, of his own good nature, give a distinctly 
dishonest expression to his own sentiments. It is not 
often that persons of so widely divergent views at¬ 
tempt to worship together. It is not often, therefore, 
that a supposed religious service involves so much that 
is irreligious. But when we think of the necessary 
differences in the premises, reasonings, and conclusions 
of human minds, even if all be Christians, can we be 
certain that many of the services held exclusively for 
them are entirely free from a tendency to the same 
form of irreligion; or that the Church itself is wholly 
without blame for this? Can we be certain, either, 
that those w T ho are striving for the unity of Christen¬ 
dom while, at the same time, advocating a more strict 
acceptance by all men of the rites and creeds of their 
own branch of the Church are aiming at any result 
that is desirable? What is desirable seems to be the 
conforming of all spiritual methods to the requirements 
of spiritual truth, the very nature of which, as has 
been shown, necessitates its being communicated not 
dogmatically, but suggestively. Only when these re¬ 
quirements have been fulfilled can we have any reason¬ 
able expectation that the Church will be able also to 
conform its methods to the demands of the mature and 
rational mind which it should seek to influence, or to 
what we have every reason to believe to have been its 
practise during its earliest and most efficient period. 


CHAPTER X 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS AFFECTED BY CONSIDERING 
SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

The Church Not an End but a Means—The Church Intended to Influ¬ 
ence Opinion, Inclination, and Conduct—Opinion Most Influenced 
Not by Authority, but by Thought—Illustrations from History— 
Same Principle Applied to the Influence Exerted Upon Belief by 
the Numbers Attending Any One Church —Or Exerted Upon 
Expressions of Belief—External Unity of the Church May Be Det¬ 
rimental to Influence of Thought as Thought—Influence of 
Thought as Thought, Aside from the Influence of Authority Upon 
Christian Opinion—And Upon Conduct—Reasons for This—The 
Conception of the Church Which Harmonizes with the Testimony 
Afforded by Historic Christianity — By the Primitive Church — 
Enforced Unity of the Church Is Not the Spiritual Unity of 
Christians—Nor Is It Made Prominent Where the Church is Grow¬ 
ing— The Church as Influencing Inclinations Through Rites or 
Rituals—Worship Can Not Be Exprest Through Argumentative 
or Dogmatic Language—Neglect of This Principle in English 
Cathedrals—In Assemblies of Those of Divergent Views—Principle 
Applied to Hymns — To Prayers and Repetitions of Creeds — The 
Church in Influencing Conduct is Sometimes Dictatorial, Some¬ 
times Prohibitive, but Usually Negative—The Christianity of the 
Christ is Positive—The Christian Must Do More Than Seek His 
Own Salvation—Development in the Church of the Feeling of In¬ 
dividual Responsibility—Further Developments to Be Expected in 
the Future—These Theories Not Due to Lack of Appreciation of 
the Work of the Church. 

The trend of thought in the chapter just closed may 
incline some to infer that the author underestimates 
the importance and influence of the Christian Church. 
But need this inference follow? The answer will de¬ 
pend—will it not?—upon one’s conception of the ob¬ 
ject of the Church. We can imagine certain very worthy 

.210 


THE CIIURCII A MEANS, NOT END 211 

people greatly elated and singing almost endless dox- 
ologies in view of Church-unity brought about through 
the method which is discredited in the concluding 
paragraph of the preceding chapter. But we can also 
imagine others, equally religious and conscientious, 
who, the day after unity had been thus obtained, and 
because it had been thus obtained, would consider it 
their duty to start a new schism. No schism can be 
started except as it starts what is claimed to be a 
church. Apparently, therefore, they would believe in 
a church as fully as would those from whom they had 
separated. To a certain extent, too, both parties would 
agree in their conception of the character and function 
of the Church. Both, for example, would consider it 
an external organization; but the one would look upon 
this as an end, and the other as a means. Otherwise 
the one would not make so much of organic unity nor 
the other so little. Some think that when the Church 
organization is considered an end there is danger of 
its arousing sentiments analogous to those finding ex¬ 
pression in class-feeling, partizanship, and patriotism, 
all of which have important uses in life, but, neverthe¬ 
less, have more or less tendency toward that narrow 
and selfish view of the supreme importance of oneself 
and his environment which leads a man to plan, in 
everything that is done, first, for his own set, for his 
own party, or for his own country, right or Wrong. On 
the contrary, when the Church organization is consid¬ 
ered a means, this very fact seems to subordinate such 


212 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


sentiments to the study of methods needed in order to 
elevate the condition of every man, even tho a stranger, 
opponent, or alien, simply because it is felt that, by 
the ties of a common humanity, this man is related to 
every other man, and so to oneself. Which conception 
of the Church has the warrant of the Scriptures? 
Would it not be as difficult to find a single passage in 
them unequivocally suggesting the former as it would 
be to find one not unequivocally suggesting the latter? 
For instance, take Ileb. 10; 24, 25, “Let us con¬ 
sider one another to provoke unto love and to good 
works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves to¬ 
gether, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one 
another. ” It is certainly not the organization as 
such, nor the officials of the organization, that are 
emphasized in this, any more than is the case in the 
passage in James 5; 16 and 17, “Confess your faults 
one to another and pray one for another. . . . The 
effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth 
much.” We can scarcely imagine a modern priest of 
any high Church quoting to his congregation such pas¬ 
sages as these without qualification and explanation. 
And if not, why not? Which is more likely to be 
wrong, the conception exprest in the Scriptures or in 
in the utterance of the modern priest? 

Whether considered as a means or an end, we shall 
find the Church designed to influence men in three 
directions—that of opinion, of inclination, and of con¬ 
duct, each respectively having mainly to do with 


DOCTRINAL INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH 213 


thought, with feeling, and with will. Opinion, at 
least religious opinion, is mainly affected by the doc¬ 
trines of the Church; inclination by its methods of 
worship, or its services, as they are termed; and con¬ 
duct by its discipline. At the same time, no ecclesi¬ 
astical agencies seem intended to influence the mind in 
any one of these directions alone. The sacraments, for 
instance, are supposed to have effects in the direction 
of both worship and discipline, tho, at present, it might 
be said that they are chiefly directed toward empha¬ 
sizing doctrine. This is owing to a method sometimes 
termed “ fencing the ordinances.” To this phrase and 
the purpose represented by it there could, of course, be 
no objection in case nothing were attempted further 
than to prevent a misunderstanding of the meaning of 
the ordinances and to promote an intelligent use of 
them. But much more than this is attempted. In 
many churches, rites like those accompanying the Lord’s 
Supper, baptism, confession, burial, and marriage are 
administered to or for those alone who have given 
assent to certain dogmas having to do with the organiza¬ 
tion’s general theories, but not, except very remotely, 
with these rites themselves. Through means of them 
and the natural desire of the people to share in what¬ 
ever benefits may be supposed to attend them, the 
Church endeavors to enforce upon its members its 
whole theological system. The same endeavor is made 
also, but less directly, through the teaching of its 
catechisms and the enjoining of the public repetition in 


214 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


its assemblies of its creeds, hymns, and rituals. The 
general influence thus exerted we may term that of 
ecclesiastical authority. 

Now let us ask what is the actual effect of the en¬ 
forcement by the Church of such authority? Does it 
furnish the most successful way of influencing opinions? 
Of course, the majority of men think that it does. 
Otherwise, our leading churches would not almost uni¬ 
versally employ it. But are the views of the majority 
correct? When authority sets out to influence opinion, 
exactly what are its effects? Undoubtedly, to em¬ 
phasize that which it proclaims. Moreover, because 
this is emphasized, almost all children, many women, 
and some men may suppose that they accept it as their 
own opinion. But let us consider the subject a mo¬ 
ment. Opinion is an inference derived from thought, 
and thought is that of which we become conscious 
through thinking. Authority may dictate to a mind 
that which is the opinion of others; but this opinion can 
not become the mind’s own, unless this mind be fur¬ 
nished with facts and proofs which can cause it, as a 
result of its own thinking, to draw the inference which 
the opinion expresses. Otherwise, if mere authority 
be exercised, wholly aside from that which only can 
legitimately influence thinking, one of two things will 
happen: either the mind will disregard authority and 
think for itself, or else it will submit to authority and 
not think at all—at least, about the subject which 
authority has tried to make it accept. In neither case 


DOCTRINAL ECCLESIASTICISM 


215 


has authority been successful in influencing opinions— 
in the former case, because it has awakened thoughts 
leading away from the opinions which it would en¬ 
force ; in the latter case, because it has supprest thoughts, 
substituting for rational acknowledgment of facts or 
proofs mere prejudice, and introducing for the govern¬ 
ing principle of mind bigotry, superstition, or fanati¬ 
cism. Only in the degree in which authority exerts its 
influence as an agency subordinated to the purpose of 
making men think about that which is presented can 
their minds be permanently influenced by it. 

We find these facts illustrated in the histories of the 
Church in all countries. In the Middle Ages—as is 
true in some communities to-day—the influence of 
religion upon prejudice was enormous, but its influence 
upon thought was barely perceptible. The people, 
when driven by their priests, could hardly be said to 
be actuated by thought any more than the beasts of 
burden when driven by the people. Yet who can deny 
that not to be actuated by thought is not to be actuated 
by mind which God has made supreme in man? It is no 
wonder that, in individual conduct and in general 
civilization, there should have been, in those times, 
and is in those communities now, very little, either in 
private, social, or civic life, of what Paul, in Gal. 5; 22, 
terms the fruit of the spirit—love, joy, peace, long- 
suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and 
temperance. On the other hand, in every age in which 
Christianity has made great advances, whether in 


216 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


the first centuries of the Christian era, in the reforma¬ 
tion of the sixteenth century, or in the missionary 
enterprise of the nineteenth, it has done so with scarcely 
any help at all from the exertion of authority—simply 
through presenting thought to the thinking mind. 

But it may be asked whether the fact that certain 
phases of opinion are accepted by large numbers, many 
of whom are intelligent and influential, does not, of 
itself, affect the thoughts of those whom the Church 
seeks to influence? Most certainly it does. In such 
cases, the presumption always is that the phase of 
opinion which appeals to so many of this character 
can not but be important. Very well, then, it may be 
added, the condition indicated is exactly that of the 
Church. Why, therefore, should this not seek to reen¬ 
force its doctrines through the influence of the number 
and character of its members? Who has said here that 
it should not? But there are different ways in which 
this kind of influence may be exerted. These may be 
illustrated by recalling those which may be adopted by 
a political party. The party may organize, hold meetings, 
have processions, and call attention to its principles by 
conducting what is termed a campaign of education, 
through such methods making an appeal to thought, 
and seeking to lead the people, through an exercise of 
their own intelligence, to accept the truth of which they 
have been convinced; or, on the other hand, the party 
may make its appeal merely to the spirit of comrade¬ 
ship—to that which causes men to join with their 


RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY AND THINKING 217 


friends, and to go with the crowd. So far as the latter 
method and it alone is pursued, success results because 
of preventing the people from thinking about the real 
issues. But in case they need to think about these; in 
case they be called upon to vote on questions especially 
demanding an exercise of mind, is it not easy to per¬ 
ceive that any large success in the campaign, tho no 
dishonesty were practised in it, would be detrimental 
to the interests of the country? And if this sort of 
campaign can not be justified in politics, how can it, in 
the least degree, be justified in religion, the whole ob¬ 
ject of which is, or should be, to influence the thought¬ 
ful side of a man’s nature? The influence of the Church 
is not legitimately employed except when emphasizing 
phases of opinion in such a way as to make a man ex¬ 
ercise his own thought with reference to them. Any 
method of presenting them of such a kind as to suppress 
a man’s reasoning faculties is not above the level of 
witchcraft, which, before psychic subjects had been 
studied scientifically, was considered and, sometimes, 
as judged from its effects, rightly considered essentially 
Satanic. 

Almost equally injurious is an influence upon a man’s 
thoughts so exerted as to prevent any expression of 
them. The world can not afford to lose—no institution 
has a right to deprive it of—such results of private in¬ 
telligence as may add to the intelligence of the com¬ 
munity. But, as we all know, this is the exact effect 
often produced by the undue exercise of authority on 



218 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


the part of the Church, whether the result of this be 
an influence exerted directly or indirectly. The author 
once boarded at the same house with a naval attache of 
the Spanish legation in London. This man was al¬ 
ways arguing against the Catholic Church, insisting, 
for instance, that its rapid growth in the United States 
presaged the speedy overthrow of our free institutions. 
Nevertheless, he attended regularly the services of this 
Church in London, his exprest reason for doing so being 
that, if he did not, he should lose social standing among 
those of his own country with whom he was obliged to 
associate. Here was a very mild phase of indirect in¬ 
fluence, but nevertheless exerted so as to prevent an 
exceptionally intelligent man from expressing in con¬ 
duct the results of his own thinking—in other words, 
from exerting his own intelligence in such a way as to 
add to the intelligence of the community. It is ex¬ 
actly the kind of influence that has been produced in 
every age and country in which has been experienced 
that so-styled blessed consummation which some have 
in mind when they pray for the unity of Christendom. 

Wherever there has been one church, there, on ac¬ 
count of the intrinsic selfishness, narrowness, and 
tyranny of its masses, as well as of its rulers, there has 
been, on the part of many of its ablest men—those best 
able to use their own minds—a seething mass of self- 
seeking calculation, moral cowardice, chronic hypocrisy, 
and habitual falsehood, with all the lack of integrity 
and intrinsic morality in every direction which neces- 


RELIGIOUS CONFORMITY DEMORALIZING 219 


sarily finds expression in one who dare not obey his 
conscience, or be an enthusiastic devotee of the truth 
as he himself perceives it. On the contrary, in the de¬ 
gree in which the conception of one church as a single 
external body, with one set of dogmas and rulers having 
authority over opinion and conscience, has declined, 
in that degree has the effect upon religious life of such 
influences as are merely social, political, or partizan 
declined; in other words, in that degree has truth been 
left to appeal to men merely as truth, and thought 
merely as thought. No one can overestimate the 
practical benefit of this result. To it is due almost all 
the progress of the world in either education, sociology, 
or government since the sixteenth century. It is not 
denied by any historian that this progress was first 
developed in the countries of Northern Europe, and 
among those who emigrated from them to America. 
It was in these countries in which men’s general con¬ 
ception of the Christian Church was no longer con¬ 
founded with that of a single external organization 
that thought was first allowed to exert the legitimate 
influence of thought upon the mind of the indi¬ 
vidual.* 

Has the influence thus exerted been detrimental to 
the effect of Christianity upon opinion and conduct? 
Does not this to-day in these Protestant countries ex¬ 
ert as much influence as it does in non-Protestant coun¬ 
tries upon public legislation and private character? 


* See note on page 195. 


220 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


Would not the statement that the Christian sentiment 
of a nation demanded a certain measure have more 
weight with more legislators in Great Britain or in the 
United States than it would in France or in Italy? 
Certainly, in the former countries, in which virtually 
all men, by the very force of circumstances, have been, 
as it were, compelled to acknowledge that many differ¬ 
ent external organizations may be legitimate develop¬ 
ments of the Church of the Christ, no legislator would 
dream of opposing any measure, as is frequently done 
in other countries, merely because of its being advo¬ 
cated by Christians. “At the head of the Government 
of this country,” said Father Eugene Flannan, of St. 
Martin’s Catholic Church, Washington, D. C., as 
reported in The Evening Star , December 17, 1906, “are 
Christian gentlemen, but it is not so with the French 
republic. They are unchristian and atheistic and hate 
the name of God.” “I am weighing my words,” said 
Cardinal Gibbons, the head of the Catholic Church of 
the United States, in a statement prepared by him and 
published in most of the papers of America and Europe 
on December 14, 1906—“I am weighing my words, and 
say, with deliberate conviction, that the leaders of the 
present French Government are actuated by nothing 
less than hatred of religion. We have no spirits akin 
to these in this country. We have here much indiffer¬ 
ence to religion; but we have no body of men, no great 
party that makes it a chief aim to weaken the power of 
religion, and, if possible, utterly to destroy it out of 



RELIGIOUS CONFORMITY AND UNBELIEF 221 

the land. But in France the Jacobin party is not dead. 
Their spirit is as living to-day as it was in the last 
decade of the eighteenth century. They hate God; they 
hate Christ; they hate his religion. And yet the ut¬ 
terances of such men are received as unsuspectingly 
by many Americans as would be a discourse by Mr. 
Cleveland, Mr. Roosevelt, or Mr. Taft—-men who 
recognize the powerful influence religion has in pro¬ 
moting the welfare of society ... It is easy to show 
that I am not misrepresenting. . . . Let me give you 
a few examples of the language of these men and you 
can judge if the American people have ever heard any¬ 
thing similar from their own leaders, or if any American 
statesmen would dare to utter such statements. What 
would we Americans say if a Cabinet officer were to 
propose this?” etc. Such, according to the testimony 
of the primate of the Catholic Church in America, is the 
condition in France three or four hundred years after 
the too nearly successful attempt to suppress religious 
non-conformity in that country through the killing or 
banishing, so far as possible, of all the Huguenots. The 
proportion, too, of the people of France who are willing 
to be led by the element which the cardinal deplores is 
significant. According to telegraphic reports published 
in all our newspapers of February 20, 1907, two months 
after this cardinal and others had had ample oppor¬ 
tunity to explain the animus of these irreligious leaders, 
one of their actions, subsequently denounced by the 
Vatican, was sustained by the representatives of the 


222 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


people in the Chamber of Deputies in Paris by a vote 
of 389 to 88. 

Now let us notice another noteworthy fact, so gen¬ 
erally acknowledged as to need no confirmation. It is 
this—that no Englishman or American of wide ex¬ 
perience would admit that the intellectual or moral 
character of Christian people, especially of the Christian 
clergy, ranks lower—he is usually ready to argue that 
it ranks higher—in his own country than in any coun¬ 
try exclusively controlled or dominated by a single 
church. Probably no man in the United States, cer¬ 
tainly none, so far as recorded, thought of challenging 
the following statement written to a Catholic, Mrs. 
Bellamy Storer, by President Roosevelt on May 18, 
1900, and published in all the principal newspapers of 
the country on December 11, 1906: “I emphatically 
feel, as I have always told you, that the chance for 
bettering the Catholic inhabitants of the tropic islands 
lies by bringing them up to the highest standard of 
American Catholicism. The worst thing that could 
happen both for them and the Catholic Church would 
be for the Catholic Church to champion the iniquities 
that have undoubtedly been committed, not only by 
lay, but by clerical would-be leaders in the Philippines 
and elsewhere. One incident, which I actually can 
not put on paper, came to my personal knowledge in 
connection with a high Catholic ecclesiastic in Cuba, 
which was of a character so revolting and bestial that 
it made one feel that the whole hierarchy in the island 


NONCONFORMITY AND TRUTHFULNESS 223 


needed drastic renovation.” Think how impossible it 
would be to make such an accusation against any 
official or officials of any church in the United States 
without an instant demand for proof and the ecclesias¬ 
tical prosecution of the one accused! 

For these conditions—for the respect paid to the 
opinions of Christians as Christians, and for the general 
belief in their intellectual and moral integrity—there 
are extremely good reasons; and they are all connected 
with the existence of what is termed schism. The 
first of these reasons is that, when every one is not only 
free in fact, but feels free, to express, in word and deed, 
his own inward religious convictions, the tendency to 
that trait, which probably the majority of men acknowl¬ 
edge to be at the basis of all that is most reprehensible 
in character— i.e., untruthfulness—is lessened. The 
requirements of religion at least furnish no occasion 
for indulgence in it. The second reason is that, where 
there are many different branches of the Church repre¬ 
senting many different views and methods, with some 
of which one can hardly fail to agree, the tendency to 
truthfulness is increased. The third reason is that this 
tendency is developed in such a way as not necessarily 
to unchurch a man. He can still remain theoretically a 
member of the Church universal, through joining one 
of the bodies recognized to be one of its legitimate 
branches. The fourth reason is the natural and inevi¬ 
table competition between these branches. This need 
not be, and, in America., it is not, as a rule, at all hos- 


224 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 


tile; nevertheless it causes the members of each branch 
to be critical of those of other branches, and thus 
serves to keep all true to a high standard. Finally, 
a fifth reason is that this high standard is attained 
through the only condition of Church life which can 
actually make it and Christian life synonymous. Prob¬ 
ably there are hundreds of thousands to-day in France 
and Italy who, while claiming to be friendly to the 
ideal embodied in the life of Jesus, acknowledge them¬ 
selves to be enemies of the only organization which to 
them represents the Church. This statement could not 
be applied to the same extent in either Great Britain or 
the United States, simply because the conception that 
in these countries men have of the Church, as something 
not necessarily involving a single external organization, 
renders the condition indicated unnecessary, if not 
impossible. 

Now can this conception, which seems to be so ra¬ 
tional in itself and so beneficial in its results, be justified 
by the lessons derivable from what is termed historic 
Christianity;—in other words—to use the term in the 
sense in which those did who originated it—from the 
history of the development of the Church as an external 
organization? A negative answer is often given to this 
question; and such an answer is often supposed by 
high-churchmen to furnish an irrefutable argument 
against the view that has here been presented. But 
let us think a little. The only logical answer to our 
question must make it affirmative. Consider, for a 


THE HISTORIC CHURCH NEVER ONE 225 


moment, the contents of ecclesiastical history. Of 
what do they mainly consist? Of what except records 
of methods through which individuals and communities 
have protested against assumptions of authority in 
matters of belief and practise on the part of coun¬ 
cils and officials of the Church? Of what except the 
records of controversies, persecutions, and wars that 
have resulted on account of the persistence of these 
protesters? Of wdiat except the records, one after 
another, of the triumphs, not invariable but frequent, of 
these protesters or of their successors? Merely a list 
of the names of the different Christian churches might 
furnish an indisputable proof that what some term the 
“divine influence’ 7 manifested in processes of develop¬ 
ment has not kept the Church an organic unity, but 
has brought into being many different organizations. 
These have originated, too, almost always because of 
fidelity to conviction and conscience on the part of 
those who, like the earliest followers of the great 
Master, were “put out 77 of some existing “synagogue 77 
(John 9; 22, 12; 42, 16; 2). The Nestorian, Armenian, 
Coptic, Greek, Roman, Waldensian, English, Lutheran, 
Presbyterian, and Wesleyan churches are all distinct 
and different. Many of them are much more distinct 
and different than are the more recently organized 
Protestant sects at present existing in England and the 
United States; for these latter are accustomed, as most 
of the former are not, to exchange both members and 
pastors. In view especially of this latter fact, and of 


226 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


the development of charity both of head and heart 
which it indicates, no extreme Protestant need fear to 
acknowledge all the force that there may be in the argu¬ 
ment derived from the development of historic Chris¬ 
tianity. But while accepting this argument, he has 
a right to insist that his opponents who start it shall 
agree not to stop it before it reaches its logical teimina- 
tion. What is this? The acknowledging of the legit¬ 
imacy of the condition that the Church has attained in 
England and the United States. The majority of the 
people of these countries alone of all the w T orld have 
carried into practise the only theory concerning the 
Church which can be rightly inferred from the ways 
in which the Providence of God, through the ages, has 
developed it. Its growth has been not that of a stream, 
always moving toward some single channel and never 
upward; but like that of a tree, always getting away 
from its one trunk and mounting higher, as well as re¬ 
vealing, in each successive season new branches which, 
to one who did not know that all were offshoots of 
a single stalk, would seem not only more numerous, 
but more divergent. So much for the argument from 
historic Christianity. 

Now let us notice whether the same conception is 
justified by something else— i.e., by the conditions ex¬ 
isting in the primitive church, so far as these are re¬ 
vealed in the records of the Scriptures. There need be 
no uncertain answer to this question. Take such a 
passage as the one undoubtedly referring to the Church, 



CHURCH UNITY SPIRITUAL 


227 


beginning, “There is one body and one Spirit" (Eph. 
4; 4), or 1 Cor. 12; 13, “For by one Spirit are we all 
baptized into one body"—do these passages refer to a 
spiritual body or to a material one?—and if to the 
latter, in what circumstances can one spirit be supposed 
to animate this material body or organization? Is it 
when the organization, as such, forces men to utter 
one set of opinions and to perform one set of rites, while, 
all the time, they may be thinking something different 
in their minds, and wishing to do it in their hearts? 
Yet this is exactly the condition where unity is enforced 
either by the action of officials, or by the popular senti¬ 
ment in the organization occasioned by such action. 

It certainly seems difficult to understand how unity 
that is thus enforced can ever be unity of the spirit. No 
two individuals can have unity of spirit except in the 
degree in which, in the presence of the other, each is 
free, and feels free, to say and to do what he chooses. 
Why should it not be the same in the case of two, or of 
any number of Christians? But if it be the same, then 
one might say with truth that there is often far more 
religious unity of spirit in one little New England vil¬ 
lage, tho divided into half a dozen sects all agreeing to 
disagree in some things, but uniting, as they usually do, 
in the practical work of charitable organizations and 
Men’s or Women’s Christian Associations, than would 
be possible in any single church in Christendom in¬ 
spired by the merely partizan spirit that caused its 
members to speak of it as “the" church. 


228 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSP1RATION 

At this point the reader may begin to perceive the 
bearings of these conclusions upon the subject mooted 
at the opening of the present chapter. If men believe 
that any phase of opinion, whether religious or political, 
be essential to human welfare, or be merely very im¬ 
portant, it is natural, and, sometimes, obligatory that 
they should unite with others of the same belief, and 
organize, in order to propagate this phase of opinion. 
Their organization, in proportion to its size and to the 
character of its members, may—as it must necessarily— 
draw attention to the phase of opinion for which it 
stands, but, for reasons already given, for it to exert 
even in this way any except a distinctly mental in¬ 
fluence is not legitimate theoretically. Nor is it wise 
practically. Who can have failed to notice this latter 
fact? When a man is trying to control our thought, 
he is apt to succeed in exactly the degree in which he 
seems to be expressing his own personal convictions. 
The moment that we have reason to suppose him a 
special pleader for a certain cause or clientage of which 
he is the official spokesman, we keep our minds more or 
less closed even to those parts of his argument which 
we should otherwise accept. A preacher who is always 
backing his pleas with the authority of the Church may 
have great influence with those of his own communion, 
but he has little influence with others. This fact alone 
accounts for the rapid growth of Christianity in every 
age and country in which those who have pleaded for 
it have seemed to stand, as it were alone, and to work 


CHURCH WORSHIP 


229 


for their own individual belief, rather than for that of 
an organization of which they were members. It was 
so in the early days of Christianity, of the Reformation, 
of the Wesleyan revival, and of the Salvation Army; and 
it characterizes the great missionary work at home and 
abroad that is carried on at present very largely by 
laymen of the various Christian associations. 

So much with reference to the Church’s influencing 
thought through enforcing belief in its doctrines. On 
page 212, the second object of the Church was said to be 
to influence inclinations or feeling. This is a far more 
important phase of its influence than is sometimes 
recognized. Many, especially in Protestant countries, 
suppose that the chief, if not the sole, object of attend¬ 
ing a church service is to hear the sermon. But what 
will those who think this do in case the sermon contain 
for them nothing new in the way of thought, nor even— 
what is sometimes a substitute for thought—in the way 
of presentation? This can be said of many a sermon, 
and, by experienced readers or thinkers, of many that 
are quite instructive and inspiring to the young and 
inexperienced. What then? Shall those whom the 
sermon fails to interest cease to attend the services? 
Yes, if they be accustomed to follow only their 
own inclinations. But not by any means “yes,” if 
they be accustomed to regard the welfare of others. 
In the latter case, they are likely to recall that the 
young need to be instructed, the inexperienced to be 
guided, the despondent to be made hopeful, the selfish 


230 TIIE PS YCIIOL 0 GY OF INS PIE A TIOK 


to be made sympathetic, the sordid to be made aspiring, 
as well as a whole world of people almost submerged in 
a mean fight for material gains to be saved from it by 
the rest and meditation naturally accompanying a still 
Sabbath, and the uplift and outlook naturally sug¬ 
gested by a religious gathering. This is the reason 
why many a man who expects to get nothing for him¬ 
self from the sermon never fails to be present where 
others can hear it. Nor can it be truly said even of 
him that he gets from the service nothing for himself. 
That which does not minister to the head may minister 
to the heart. For some, the mere assembling with 
others, though, as often in the meetings of the Society 
of Friends, no word be uttered, has, in itself, a human¬ 
izing, a sympathetic, and therefore a spiritual effect; 
and upon many more the ritual, but especially the 
music, exerts a similar effect. These facts are formally 
recognized in most churches by the use that is made of 
the sacramental rites, especially those connected with 
the “communion,” or the “ Lord’s Supper/’ and of the 
hymns, chants, and prayers. Even the sacramental 
rites, however, so long as they may be supposed to in¬ 
fluence in certain particular directions, do so chiefly 
on account of the expressions in the rituals that ac¬ 
company them. For this reason, all that needs to be 
discust here may be included under what nuiy be said 
of these latter. Let us ask, at once then, what is the 
legitimate influence of the Church’s prayers and hymns? 
No one can deny that, to an extent, they may have 


DOGMATISM IN RITUALS 


231 


an educational and doctrinal effect. Therefore, it is 
merely natural that some should suppose it appropriate 
that they should often give an exact and even extreme 
expression to some peculiar dogma. Perhaps this form 
of expression may be justified so far as an influence is 
intended to be exerted upon children, for whose opin¬ 
ions their parents are as yet responsible, or upon grown 
people who have long been accustomed to receive cer¬ 
tain dogmas as true. But in churches the doors of 
which are thrown open in the hope that all who enter 
may join in the services as well as listen to the sermons, 
may not the dogmatic, when introduced into the de¬ 
votional parts of the exercises, effectually interfere 
with that for which these are intended? 

We all know that emotional conditions of mind differ 
from those that are logical, and that, sometimes, the 
two are antagonistic. If a man be in an excited mood, 
either hilarious or grievous, his excitement is likely to 
disappear the moment he becomes thoroughly ab¬ 
sorbed in the solution of a mathematical problem. So 
with a worshiper expected to join in a church service. 
Anything that appeals to his argumentative faculties, 
even if not opposed to his own traditional or specula¬ 
tive opinions, nevertheless supplants, to some extent, 
that which is essential to the spirit of worship. This 
fact has been practically, tho possibly unconsciously, 
recognized by the organizations of laymen which con¬ 
duct the largely attended meetings for men held on 
Sundays in certain theaters of most of our American 


232 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


cities. The non-dogmatic character of the hymns and 
prayers at these meetings is to be ascribed not only 
to the practical aim of avoiding offense, but to the 
philosophic aim of securing concurrence of emotion, 
and of affording a method of worship truly representa¬ 
tive of the devotional attitude of all. The result is one 
more of many instances proving the truth of the state¬ 
ment of the Christ that the kingdom of God, because 
within, “cometh not by observation/’ or “through 
things to be observed” (Luke 17; 20). How few 
important changes in the methods of the Church have 
been started by others than laymen or subordinate 
clergymen! Apparently, the government of God in 
the Church differs in no respect from his government 
in the state, in which, as a rule, reforms come from 
those who are in humble rather than in high positions. 
As Paul says in 1 Cor. 1; 27, “God hath chosen the weak 
things of the world to confound the things that are 
mighty.” As for this change in the removal of dog¬ 
matism from the prayers and hymns, is it not about 
time that the wisdom of doing it should be acknowl¬ 
edged by the Church as a church? Why should unity 
in devotion, or the possibility of devotion of any kind, 
be imperiled by the introduction of that which, as com¬ 
pared with it, is really non-essential? Why should 
not the service of petition and praise, so far as concerns 
this alone, be one in which all can truthfully join? In 
asking this question, the author would not like to have 
his readers imagine him so unacquainted with esthetic 


D 0 GMA TISM IN WORSHIP 


233 


effects as not to recognize that with many the harmony 
of a service, especially if it be wholly musical, exerts a 
far more potent influence than do the words used in it, 
frequently, indeed, causing the meanings of these to be 
wholly disregarded. We all know that college stu¬ 
dents of the most scrupulous morality join not only with 
great heartiness, but with great sympathetic benefit to 
themselves, in the singing of extremely bacchanalian 
songs; and do so without the least consciousness that 
the sentiments in these entirely misrepresent their own 
convictions and practises. The same principle applies 
to large numbers who derive a corresponding benefit 
by joining in the music, tho they can not join in the 
sentiment, of the services of the church. But the 
principle does not apply to all; and for their sakes, as 
well as because of the supreme importance of avoiding, 
in the worship of God at least, the slightest tendency 
to evil, the words presented for use should be con¬ 
fined, if possible, to such as all can use with absolute 
truthfulness. 

It seems strange that the English Church has not 
considered this question as related, at least, to the mode 
of worship used in its cathedrals. At present the only 
difference between the service in these and in the 
smaller parish churches is that the former is a little 
more of a spectacle—therefore one might almost say 
a little less spiritual. But suppose a service of another 
kind were introduced into the cathedral—a service in 
which every religious man of the nation could join. 


234 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


In this case, how much more than at present might the 
Church be able to do for the nation and for humanity! 
But no; “God hath chosen the weak things of this 
world to confound the wise’ 7 (1 Cor. 1; 27); and the 
spiritual work that might be done for the Christ by the 
learned “hierarchy enthroned” in a cathedral is left to 
be done mainly by unlettered laymen on the stage of a 
theater. 

A more broadly phrased ritual and hymnal is needed 
however, not merely when an audience is expected to 
be large, but, still more, when on account of being large 
it is expected to be promiscuous—to be composed of 
those of many divergent views. This latter condition 
may exist often where the assembly is comparatively 
small, as on shipboard, or at an army-post. Frequently, 
in such places, men of different religious convictions 
would like to worship with their fellows; but some 
of them can not do so because of the supposition— 
to say nothing of the self-righteous and self-opinion¬ 
ated determination—on the part of others that devo¬ 
tion must be dogmatic. Who can deny that it would 
be expedient, as well as charitable, for the Christian 
Church to prepare and recommend rituals and hymns 
that could meet such conditions? 

Were this work to be undertaken those engaged in 
it would be surprized to find, not how much, but how 
little—yet enough to justify their efforts—would need 
to be omitted or changed. To illustrate this in the 
case of hymns, any religious man can join in almost any 


DOGMATISM IN WORSHIP 


235 


of these addressing either the Father or the Spirit, or 
dwelling upon the aspirations or the duties of the relig¬ 
ious life. Even with reference to other hymns that 
seem less general in expression, it is simply a fact that, 
no matter what it may be written to express, the best 
hymn, or even prayer, like genuine poetry, or a sincere 
request, is seldom didactic. It gives utterance to that 
which is in the heart rather than in the head. When 
the heart speaks, the expression may be very vaguo, yet 
sufficiently suggestive to satisfy those whose concep¬ 
tions are very definite. A hymn that, at one time, was 
invariably sung at every communion service in a cer¬ 
tain well-known Presbyterian church was written to 
give vent to the feelings of a Unitarian; and it is not 
too much to say that many of the words inspired by the 
most intense consciousness of faith in the Christ and 
communion with him could be sung, because of their 
purely poetic quality, not only by Unitarians, but by 
Hebrews and Buddhists, especially if it were under¬ 
stood that, by common consent, the phraseology could 
be accepted in a suggestive and not a dogmatic sense. 
Of course, such religionists could not join in singing 
lines like those mentioned on page 208; but might it not 
be better for the spirit of devotion—to say no more— 
if believers, no matter how fervent, in the Trinity or 
the incarnation, could be induced to express their feel¬ 
ings in terms less mathematical and physical? 

Now let us consider the prayers that make up so large 
a part of many of the rituals. We shall find that the 


236 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

tendency to dogmatism by no means asserts itself in all 
of these. It would be difficult to find a religious man 
of any belief who could not join in “The Lord’s Prayer,” 
or even in petitions tendered “in the name of the Lord,” 
in case it were understood that the worshipers’ inter¬ 
pretations of this phrase could be allowed to differ. 
But why should they not be? To allow this would merely 
carry out the logical inference from the conception 
that spiritual truth should be considered suggestive 
rather than dogmatic. Moreover, it would merely be 
recognizing publicly a fact already recognized privately. 
The fact is this—that all the worshipers, even in the 
most orthodox churches, do not interpret the phrase in 
exactly the same way. Why should not the theory of 
the Church, in this regard, be made to conform with 
acknowledged practise? As for the repeating or sing¬ 
ing together of what is termed “the creed ”—even if as 
elementary as the Apostles’—may not this practise, 
except in meetings held exclusively for the expression 
of the religious convictions of particular organizations, 
be a little, to quote Shakespeare, “from the purpose” 
of the services into which it is introduced? In promis¬ 
cuous audiences, may it not exalt dogmatism to the det¬ 
riment of both devotion and truthfulness, and not in¬ 
frequently to their exclusion? 

The third object of the Church was said to be to in¬ 
fluence will and conduct through discipline. The way 
in which a man supposes this object to be attainable 
will depend upon what has been already mentioned in 



CHURCH DISCIPLINE 


237 


another connection, namely, upon the degree in which 
he conceives the Church to be an end or a means. By 
one who conceives it to be the former, discipline is 
often supposed to have accomplished its purpose when 
the members of a church have been brought into sub¬ 
jection to its officers, or have been made to fulfil its 
prescribed observances—as, for instance, by being 
present, once a week, in a building at a religious service 
where they can see others and let others see them; by 
paying regularly their pew-rent or other money due the 
church, and contributing their share to additional col¬ 
lections; or by not being absent too frequently from 
the confession or the communion. By those who con¬ 
ceive the Church to be a means rather than an end, the 
object of discipline is supposed to be attained in the 
degree in which its members are kept from pursuits 
or indulgences such as dancing, tippling, card-playing, 
or theater-going, which are considered to have an evil 
practical tendency, as well as from those which are 
more generally acknowledged by all to be wrong or 
vicious in themselves. The latter conception of the 
object of discipline is broader than the former, yet both 
are narrow—the former because it concerns itself merely 
with observances of the Church, and not with one’s 
fulfilment of his duties toward his fellows; and the 
latter because it concerns itself merely with external 
conduct, and not with influences exerted over many 
inward motives which must be present before a man can 
be a Christian in the highest sense. This is the same 


238 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF 1NSPIRATION 


as to say that discipline exercised so as to secure merely 
such results as have been mentioned affects only a small 
part of that which constitutes character. Moreover, 
as a moment’s thought will convince us, it affects onty 
the meanest part of this, because it affects that part 
only which is actuated by a desire to secure one’s own 
personal benefit, or, as this is termed in religion, one’s 
own salvation. A man could possess all the traits which 
it would be possible for the kinds of discipline that have 
been mentioned to create or develop and yet do very 
little in the way of positively uplifting his fellows or 
manifesting such characteristics as were in the Christ. 

Almost the last w T ords of the great Master to his dis¬ 
ciples on the eve of his Crucifixion, which he seems to 
have foreseen, were these (John 15; 11), “These things 
have I spoken unto you that my joy might remain in 
you, and that your joy might be full.” No man can 
have this joy in his soul who has not experienced within 
himself, in some degree, the love to which the Master 
refers in the verses preceding and following this; for 
instance, in verse 10, “If ye keep my commandments 
ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my 
Father’s commandments and abide in his love,” and 
verses 12 and 13, “This is my commandment, that ye 
love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love 
hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for 
his friends.” It was the self-renunciation exercised by 
the Christ, not in his own behalf but for the benefit of 
others, that caused the joy in which he wished that 


TIIF JOY OF CHRISTIAN LIFE 


239 ' 


others might share. That the same self-renunciation 
on their part might result in the same experience of 
joy is something of which all of us might become con¬ 
vince^ in a partial degree at least, from our own ex¬ 
perience. Every man who has ever become wholly ab¬ 
sorbed in a great undertaking, either in behalf of an 
individual, a society, or a state, knows something of the 
unconsciousness of weariness, danger, or pain accom¬ 
panying the feeling of enthusiasm that carries one 
through his task. There is a joy of the conflict as great, 
at times, as that of any victory that can follow it. In 
the height of the battle the severest wounds are often 
unfelt. Experts in reading the human countenance 
declared in the sixteenth century, both in England and 
upon the Continent, that many martyrs burned at the 
stake had apparently experienced no physical suffering. 
Why should this not have been the case? If a man 
have no sense of pain when the conscious nature is be¬ 
numbed as in ordinary hypnotism, why should not the 
same result follow the far more complete dominance of 
the subconscious when the spirit is supreme? Is it 
strange that the great Master should have wished 
something like the “joy” attendant upon this con¬ 
dition, as applied to the common disappointments and 
disasters of life, to be the perpetual experience of those 
whom he foresaw destined to constant conflict from 
which, in this world, there could be no release? The 
attitude of the Christian mind which, according to any 
profound or comprehensive view of the subject, the 


240 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

discipline of the Church should be designed to develop— 
what can it be except such as is a natural expression of 
this “joy,” due to the pervading influence of the Spirit 
of the Master? 

And how is it possible for one to possess this joy in 
anything like completeness w T ho is merely seeking his 
own salvation? Every church in Christendom might 
be crowded with supplicants from morning to night, 
engaged, when not present in the church, in deny¬ 
ing themselves every pleasure whatsoever, and even 
in starving and scourging themselves to the verge of 
death, and yet, among them all, there might not be 
one man really possessing the spirit or manifesting the 
conduct of a genuine follower of the Christ. The Christ 
did not aim for his own salvation. How can it be sup¬ 
posed that his followers should do this? A follower 
of the Savior should himself be a Savior. The dele¬ 
gating of all saving wx>rk to some official of a church, 
and the consequent lack of spiritual interest in life, be¬ 
cause in it there seems nothing spiritual to do, is one of 
the saddest characteristics of the towns and villages of 
southern and eastern Europe. From them the scores 
of educational and benevolent secular and religious 
societies that give social and humanitarian employ¬ 
ment to surplus aspiration in almost all similar locali¬ 
ties in our own country seem to be entirely absent. 
No wonder that, where life is so tame, because, in the 
truest sense, so spiritless, many more than would other¬ 
wise be the case seek divertisement in tippling and 


TIIE CHRISTIAN A SA VIOR 


241 


gambling and other pastimes that are frivolous if not 
vicious. About the only expression which is afforded 
in these communities for anything like that spiritual 
fellowship which is well-nigh essential for the full en¬ 
joyment of life is connected with ecclesiastical cere¬ 
monies. For providing these the Church should have 
full credit. They seem often like oases in a desert of 
disinterest. The ceremonies enable the people to sing 
and march together, all drest in their best and some¬ 
times in fancy costumes; more than this, in such a con¬ 
dition to see others and—what is often more satis¬ 
factory—to be seen by them. Yet one can not avoid 
feeling that the consequent spiritual uplift is to that 
which might attend upon a broader conception of 
Christian life, just about what the assembling and 
blowing of the same people against the outside of a 
balloon in which they wished to rise might be to that 
which would follow the appropriate inflating of it. 
What the people most need is not a priest to marshal 
processions and emphasize his own leadership in these, 
but a presence of spiritual influence inspiring the con¬ 
duct of ordinary life, and emphasizing the right and 
duty of every one to use his reason in methods of de¬ 
veloping it. At what period in the Dark Ages did the 
officials of the Church discover that, in the degree in 
which this condition could be realized, that which would 
separate the people from the priest and elevate him 
would be decreased, whereas that which would join the 
priest to the people and elevate them would be increased! 


242 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


It is interesting to trace the development of the con¬ 
ception of the privilege and responsibility of the in¬ 
dividual Christian. The Wesleyans seem to have been 
the first, in our own country, to emphasize it strongly. 
But, in doing this, they have been surpassed recently 
by those enlisted in the Salvation Army. At first, in 
both bodies, the conception of Christian work was 
largely limited to that of exhorting. Many, however, 
can not exhort to edification. Owing to the discovery 
of this, perhaps, as much as to any other reason, there 
has been developed the theory embodied in the Young 
Men’s and the Women’s Christian Associations, as well 
as in other allied and similar societies, namely, that any 
method of increasing the comfort, the intelligence, and 
the spirituality of an individual or a community is 
directly Christian in effect. In fact, there has been 
developed the theory that, as the Church is a collection 
of the followers of the Christ, all services are appropri¬ 
ate for it which represent a ministering to humanity 
according to any of the methods of the Christ. He 
spent his time on earth not only in teaching, preaching, 
and praying, but (Acts 10; 38) in going “ about and 
doing good,” and in such ways that, after he had passed 
through a province, it might be said (Luke 7; 22) that 
“the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, 
the deaf hear.” All this kind of work was done, too, 
by one who, according to his own testimony (Luke 
7; 34), came “eating and drinking,” so that men said, 
“Behold a gluttonous man, a wine-bibber, a friend of 


THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE CHURCH 243 

publicans and sinners." It is the general principle un¬ 
derlying the methods of the Christ, as indicated in such 
passages, that has gradually led men to consider it a part 
of the work of the Church not only to establish hospitals 
for the sick and the unfortunate, and institutions for the 
education of the young, the blind, and the deaf, but, 
through all possible efforts in other directions also, to 
seek to diffuse knowledge which shall prevent and cure 
disease and suffering, and increase human comfort and 
welfare, whether manifested in spirit, mind, or body; 
and to do all these not in a super-spiritual, ultra- 
sanctified, unnatural way, causing men to rank the 
Christian with those who are not in real sympathy 
with the interests and pleasures of the world, but in a 
way following the example set by the Christ and ful¬ 
filling the conception exprest in his last prayer for his 
disciples (John 17; 15), “I pray not that thou shouldst 
take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep 
them from the evil." It is a development from con¬ 
siderations like these that has given rise, in late years, 
to what is termed the institutional church—a church 
containing many other rooms besides the main audience- 
hall, in which rooms, during almost every hour of every 
day of the week, individuals and classes can meet for 
instruction and entertainment, domestic, social, intel¬ 
lectual, and physical, as well as for what in the past 
has been termed religious. But, as yet, this conception 
of the institutional church is hardly out of its infancy. 
Men are supposed to be sufficiently loyal members of 


244 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


such a church who merely support it with contributions 
of money. But there is a better way of doing this, and 
it must be found before the Christian can be brought 
fully into such sympathy with the work of the Christ as 
to possess that “joy” of which he spoke in the passage 
quoted a moment ago. This way will be found when 
each man has come to perceive it to be his privilege, as 
well as his duty, to spend a part—say a Sabbath part, a 
seventh—of his time and effort in the service of those 
from whom he can expect no return. This service may 
be rendered within or without a church-building, which, 
like the Church itself, is merely a means to an end; and 
it will usually be rendered most effectively in the di¬ 
rection in which the one who renders it is most of an 
expert. A teacher can instruct, a scientist can en¬ 
lighten, an actor can represent, a singer can charm, 
a capitalist can subsidize, a banker can finance, a 
servant can attend, a clerk can assist. A housewife, a 
cook, a milliner—any one who wishes—can find some¬ 
thing to do in adding to the information, the skill, the 
inspiration, the uplifting of the lives of those who, as 
related to that of which they themselves have made a 
specialty, may be supposed to be below their level. 

And what about association, it may be asked, with 
the poor and the degraded?—where filth reeks and 
malignant germs are rampant? The cleanly and the 
cautious will have to guard against these, and run their 
risks, just as soldiers do on battle-fields. But let us 
hope that, before many years, the most illiterate and 


TIIE CHURCH FOR HUMANITY 245 

lowly will attain such intelligence and thrift as to 
tolerate neither mire nor microbes, and even the 
capitalist, whom, by the way, we may always expect 
to have with us so long as human ability is able to 
triumph over lack of it, will not care to refuse to con¬ 
tribute toward fresh clothes for those who lack them, 
or toward a method of cleansing for those who have 
them. When that time comes, no one will any longer 
recognize the sarcasm in the Chinese story of the 
laboring man who, when a finely drest acquaintance 
had sought to snub him by not recognizing him on the 
street, prostrated himself, and rendered thanks to the 
man for having purchased and worn that elaborate and 
heavy suit of ivory that others might have a chance oh 
gazing upon a spectacle of such unparalleled splendor; 
both rich and poor will learn, at last, that, at least, 
half the pleasure of life consists in having pleasurable 
surroundings; they will learn to give from what they 
themselves possess in order to increase the intelligence, 
the purity, the beauty, the elevation, the spirituality 
of their own environment. When this time comes, the 
Hebrew, the Buddhist, the Mohammedan, and all the 
others whom the Church is so anxious to convert to 
Christianity will scarcely need to be converted; they 
will be unable not to perceive, on every side of them, 
the proofs of the benefit which the world has received 
from it. These proofs will be afforded not because of 
any outside absolution or discipline traceable merely 
to a pope, a bishop, a priest, or a presbyter; but be- 


246 THE PSYCTIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

cause of the example of private Christians who (1 Cor. 
4; 2) “have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, 
not walking in craftiness . . . but, by manifestation of 
the truth/’ commend themselves “to every man’s con¬ 
science”; who have (Matt. 5; 16) “let their light so shine 
before men” that others, seeing their “good works,” 
have been led “to glorify their father which is in heav¬ 
en,” and who, as contest followers of the Christ, have 
so manifested the character and aims of him whom 
they follow as to lead the world to recognize in him the 
ideal of all men, or, as declared in Hag. 2; 7, “the de¬ 
sire of all nations.” 

Sufficient has been said to indicate that the theories 
advanced in this book are not due to any lack of ap¬ 
preciation of the importance and influence of the 

Church. Thev are due to the fact that the author is 

%• 

unable to discover in what way many of the present 
methods of certain churches can have the effects upon 
opinion, worship, and conduct which not one, but every 
church should consider desirable. It seems to him, 
too, that these effects might all become possible were 
all the requirements for the member of the Church 
unmistakably related to a single and simple declara¬ 
tion of a purpose to heed the call of the Christ when 
he said “Follow me.” 


CHAPTER XI 


CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE AND CONDUCT AS AFFECTED BY 
CONSIDERING SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

Important to Consider the Church’s Influence Upon the Individual- 
Supposed Origin of Subconscious Tendencies—The Important Mat¬ 
ter Is to Recognize That They Exist, and Are Often Antagonistic 
—The Antagonism Is Caused by a Consciousness, Which We Term 
Conscience, That One Tendency Has Superior Claims to Another— 
The Nature and Function of Conscience—Its Promptings from the 
Subconscious Different in Different Minds—Character of the In¬ 
fluence from the Subconscious to Some Extent Under One’s Control 
—The Result of Environment and Habit—The Influence of Con¬ 
scious Repetition—The Influence of Rituals and Rites—Overbal¬ 
anced by the Influence of Example—Reasons for This—Futility of 
Confining Efforts for Reformation of Character to Effects Merely 
Addressing the Eye or Ear—Influence of Example Upon the Sub¬ 
conscious Mind. 


If from the preceding discussion certain inferences 
may be drawn with reference to the methods best fitted 
to advance the purposes of the Church, still more im¬ 
portant inferences may be drawn with reference to 
those best fitted to advance the interests of the indi¬ 
vidual. To these methods some references have neces¬ 
sarily been made when considering the work of the 
Church. But more remains to be said. According to 
the theory that has been presented, the Church is one, 
and only one, of many means of attaining the end for 
which it, together with other agencies, is designed. 
This end is the right development, and, so far as pos¬ 
sible, the perfecting of the character of the individual. 

247 


248 THE PS YCIIOL OGY OF INSPIRA TION 


In view of this object, a consideration of what this 
right development needs is as important in order to 
confirm what has been said hitherto as it is on its own 
account. 

In order to ascertain, if possible, exactly what that 
is for which we are in search, let us recall the line of 
thought presented between pages 55 and 106 of this 
volume. Emphasis was there given to one fact which 
no one who has made a study of the human mind ever 
disputes. This is the fact that, aside from the processes 
of our minds of which we are aware, there are others, by 
which we are more or less influenced, of which we are 
not aware, except when, in fulfilment of certain mental 
laws, their results emerge into consciousness. The ex¬ 
planations of this fact differ. Some attribute the re¬ 
sults to what has been stored in a man’s memory during 
his present life; or, when thus stored, has been developed 
there through merely such methods as those of associa¬ 
tion, imagination, or logic. Some think that a certain 
reservoir, as it might be termed, of conceptions and 
tendencies is inseparable from the physical constitu¬ 
tions that we inherit from our ancestors. Some think 
that such conceptions and tendencies, tho purely men¬ 
tal in themselves, were developed in some physical 
relationship of the mind in a previous state, which 
mind, in its present state, is reincarnated; and, finally, 
some think that such experiences come from a mental 
or spiritual environment which enables the mere think¬ 
ing of other intelligences to influence the mind almost 


SUBCONSCIOUSNESS AND CONSCIENCE 249 


to the same degree in which through the senses it is 
influenced by persons or phenomena that can be seen 
or heard. 

Possibly all these explanations may contain some 
truth. None of them can be proved to contain the 
w T hole truth. The explanations, however, need not 
concern us at present. No practical, not to say ra¬ 
tional, man can expect to be influenced in a discussion 
like this by any except proved facts. From only such 
facts, therefore, will the conclusions that are to follow 
be derived. These facts may all be summarized in one, 
which is this—that whatever may be the source of sub¬ 
conscious processes of mind, every man is, more or less, 
influenced by them. Not merely a child, but every 
grown person, does many things for no more conscious 
reason than that he wants to do them. Some of these 
wants are connected with bodily appetite, as when one 
wishes to eat or to drink, and we may ascribe the effect 
to the craving of the physical nature. But other wants 
are, just as clearly, not connected with bodily appetite, 
as when a child seeks to satisfy his curiosity by obtain¬ 
ing knowledge, or his fancy by hearing a fairy tale. 
In the latter cases, we are obliged to attribute the result 
to a craving of his mental nature. If this were all that 
could be said, we might not be justified in inferring 
that there was any mental process preceding the cra¬ 
ving. But let us consider the facts further. There are 
cases in which the physical craving and the mental, of 
both of which we are conscious, are clearly antago- 


250 THE PSYCUOLOGY OF INSPIRETION 


nistic. For instance, a child or a savage who discovers 
others eating, and snatches their food from them, 
especially if he injure or kill them in order to do this, 
is, according to almost all well-authenticated testi¬ 
mony, conscious of, at least, some slight feeling tending 
to deter him from his deed. The feeling might be sup¬ 
posed to be experienced merely because the physical 
w T ere manifesting interference with the mental; because, 
to satisfy a desire for food, a man were disregarding his 
desire for fellowship, or, at least, for continued good 
fellowship, and w T ere exciting enmity and danger to 
himself. Undoubtedly, all these have something to 
do with the feeling; and they indicate that there is a 
mental process in connection with it. But w T hile one 
or the other of them may explain the particular situa¬ 
tion indicated, they fail to bring clearly to the light the 
general principle underlying all possible situations. 

This principle seems to be connected w r ith the fact 
that the antagonistic impulse is felt whenever any 
appetite or desire whatever—whether of body or of 
mind, or whether by way of causing mere negative re¬ 
luctance or positive fear—interferes with another desire 
which appears to have claims superior to its own. 
Exactly what the superior or higher desire is may not 
always be clearly distinguishable; but the general fact 
that it exists is distinguishable, and, in connection 
with the fact, the antagonism that is occasioned. It 
is to the consciousness of this antagonism that we 
ascribe what we term “conscience.” In itself con- 


CONSCIENCE AND RATIONALITY 251 

science seems to be a feeling existing anterior to any 
recognition, on our part, of any mental process pre¬ 
ceding it. And yet a study of conscience finds its 
dictates so often rational that we seem obliged to as¬ 
sociate them with the results of rational processes, 
though, usually, with processes that have taken place 
in our minds subconsciously in the sense that we our¬ 
selves were not conscious of them. We seem obliged 
to do this the more because, among the considerations 
contributing to the results, we can often detect com 
ceptions known to have been stored in memory from 
experiences through which we ourselves have passed. 
Indeed, very few thinking men, no matter how un- 
premeditatedly and apparently instinctively conscience 
has impelled them to a certain course, will fail, when 
questioned, to give what they term their conscientious 
reasons for pursuing this course. 

Conscience, therefore, seems to be a regulative faculty 
intended to control conscious mental action; but to be 
itself more or less subject to the control of subconscious 
mental action. So far as it is a regulative faculty, it 
apparently bears somewhat the same relation to pro¬ 
posed action as that which is borne by the instinct of 
self-preservation. When this latter instinct keeps a 
man from becoming intoxicated by liquor, or from 
jumping off a high precipice, the sensations that he 
feels are almost identical with those attributed to con¬ 
science in cases where this latter keeps him from steal¬ 
ing or from killing. Desires, lower or higher, seem to 


252 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF IHSPIRATIOH 


be necessarily attendant upon lower or higher possi¬ 
bilities, and wherever both exist a regulative principle 
seems necessary in order to subject the former to the 
latter. When the desire for self-preservation keeps a 
man physically safe we attribute the result to his 
rationality. Can we attribute to the same the result 
when his conscience keeps him not only physically but, 
sometimes, mentally and spiritually safe? In other 
words, if one experience a similar sensation when 
rationality is trying to keep him from physical ruin, 
and also when conscience is trying to keep him from 
moral ruin, can we not conclude that, in some regards, 
the two are similar? Yet everybody knows that they 
are not similar in all regards. Few would say that, 
as ordinarily interpreted, rationality and conscientious¬ 
ness are the same. In what regard then do they differ? 
The answer has already been suggested. The feeling 
experienced in conscience is connected with rationality 
only so far as it may be the result of subconscious 
processes of logic not manifesting themselves until the 
moment when they emerge into consciousness. The 
feeling experienced in rationality is the result of con¬ 
scious processes of logic. A man can not be what we 
term conscientious without obeying his subconscious, 
which, as has been shown, is allied, at least, to his 
spiritual and moral nature. He may be rational, often 
so, as applied to certain questions, in the highest sense, 
without being influenced in the least from the subcon¬ 
scious, spiritual, or moral nature. At the same time, a 


CONSCIENCE AND THE SPIRITUAL 253 


mind that is rational in the broadest meaning of that 
term— i.e ., accustomed to weigh candidly and justly 
all the reasons presented from every quarter—will not 
disregard the results of subconscious logic reported in 
conscience, any more than those of conscious logic 
recognized in the inferences of what is ordinarily termed 
reasoning. In all time, men seem to have accepted 
without questioning the impulses of conscience, as if 
intended, in some mysterious way, to register the 
opinion of the spiritual nature with reference to the 
spiritual quality of thought or action. What a con¬ 
firmation of the truth of this conception is afforded by 
a clear recognition of the connection between the sub¬ 
conscious and the spiritual, as well as between what we 
term the promptings of conscience and the emergence 
into consciousness of the results of subconscious rational 
logic? Is there not the best of reasons why it should be 
admitted, as it usually is, that a man can not be re¬ 
ligious without being conscientious? That he serves 
his conscience (2 Cor. 1; 12) furnishes the best possible 
proof that he walks according to his inward light 
(John 1; 9); that he is loyal to the kingdom of God as 
indicated by the laws that are written upon the 
heart (Heb. 8; 10). 

But there is something else to be said in connection 
with conscience. As has been shown, it is always more 
or less subject to the control of subconscious mentality. 
This explains why the impulses of conscience, while 
inclining each to that which appears to him to be in 



254 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 


accordance with the highest desire, or to be, as we say, 
for the best, by no means incline each to think or to 
act in the same way. They may incline a savage to eat, 
a Moor to enslave, and an American to educate his 
captive. No more conscientious men have ever lived 
than some who appear to most of the enlightened 
people of our own time to have been mere supersti¬ 
tious bigots, malicious fanatics, or persecuting tyrants. 
These facts must be owing to different conditions in 
subconsciousness to which, or, at least, through which, 
the particular form of action to which conscience dic¬ 
tates is traceable. As intimated on page 248, it mat¬ 
ters little practically what theory we adopt with refer¬ 
ence to that which occasions these conditions, whether 
we derive them from heredity, from previous existence, 
or from spiritual or mental environment. We can not 
now change our ancestors or our past, nor be certain 
of the right way in which to avoid the possible influence 
of spirits whom we can not see or hear. 

But according to any theory, there is, at least, one 
source of these conditions over which we can exercise 
control. This source is the present world in which we 
live. All the companionships, the customs, the opin¬ 
ions, the events with which our minds consciously come 
in contact, assist in forming within us such habits of 
thought, of feeling, of action; or, if not so, in filling our 
minds with such conceptions as, when recalled to 
memory, in accordance with the laws of association, 
shall determine the courses to which conscience impels 


CONSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT 255 


us. This latter, indeed, seems to be, in fact as well as 
in figure, an inward light enabling us to see the out¬ 
lines of each present emergency merely or mainly as 
they appear against a background of our own past 
experience. 

The fact, thus indicated, will be recognized to be of 
great importance. If every slightest record made on 
the mind through eye or ear remain there forever, as 
seems to be suggested by what was brought out on 
pages 57 to 63, how essential it is that, from the 
moment that a child begins to observe to the very end 
of his life, his mind should be kept from seeing or hear¬ 
ing that which, in any way, tends to lower his concep¬ 
tions of such methods of thought or action as are worthy 
of himself or just toward his fellows! There are those 
who think it one of the objects of worldly existence to 
build up a spiritual environment, a heavenly mansion 
and estate, as it were, in which the soul shall dwell 
after passing out of this material existence. The truth 
©f such a theory may not be possible to determine, but, 
by analogy, we can perceive that it is not contrary to 
reason. Even in present life men become that for which 
their previous experience has fitted them. Unless 
brought face to face with facts that evince the con- 
trary, to those who have been thoughtful, all sur¬ 
roundings seem suggestive of thought; to those wdio 
have been cruel, all seem suggestive of cruelty; to those 
who have been pure, all seem suggestive of purity. If 
there be any existence after death, it must be mental 


256 THE PSYCHOL 0 G Y OF INSPIRA TIOX 


rather than material; and, so far as that which is mate¬ 
rial is left behind, whatever remains is that which during 
earthly experience has come, as we say, to occupy the 
mind. The inferences from these facts with reference 
to the importance of surrounding our children, as well 
as all the uninstructed and the unfortunate, with right 
influences, practical and theoretical, and of ourselves 
holding aloof from association with all that is evil, are 
obvious * 

*It has been ascertained that every influence with which we come in con¬ 
tact has a suggestive effect, which, without any effort or encouragement on the 
part of the subject of it, may develop in his mind very much as does a seed 
when it sends up from the ground a plant; moreover, that those promptings so 
necessary to moral character, which we attribute to instincts, ideals, or con¬ 
science, are all affected in strength and quality by the results in unconscious 
logic and imagination which are thus evolved. When, therefore, we are allow¬ 
ing the minds, especially of the young and susceptible, to be filled with interest 
in the methods of crime, and with descriptions or pictures of its accomplish¬ 
ment, we are necessarily imperiling that which lies at the basis of conduct, that 
which keeps ideals high and conscience firm; we are weighing down and handi¬ 
capping the spirit itself in its efforts to get through life cleanly and honestly, 
and we are increasing very greatly its liability to fail in the struggle. At times, 
when people are shocked by what seems clearly indecent, they are ready to pro¬ 
test against the publication of certain proceedings in court or performances in 
theaters. But sensible people ought to think even when not shocked. Did 
they do so with reference to this subject, they would recognize that their pro¬ 
test is applicable to the publication of the portrayal of the details of any crime 
whatever—of swindling, blackmailing, burglary, arson, suicide, or murder, as 
well as of seduction or adultery. In our country, we believe in the freedom of 
the press; but, as rational creatures, only because of reasons—only as means to 
an end; only to preserve our civil, social, or religious rights; to keep our people 
from being despoiled of money, comfort, liberty, or other possessions or preroga¬ 
tives of manhood. But whenever the freedom of the press, so beneficial in some 
regards, tends to destroy the people’s rights, especially the rights of the young 
to be permitted to preserve unimpaired their standards of ideality and con¬ 
science, and the possession of all that strengthens one for the possibilities and 
triumphs of upright conduct, not to say of spiritual life, then the freedom of the 
press should be restricted. No details of crime of any kind should be allowed 
to be published as a part of the mere entertainment furnished by an ordinary 
newspaper. If the printing of them be necessary in order to secure the ends of 
justice, they should be confined, at least, to official court journals. . . . Pub¬ 
lishers whose greed is so ravenous that it is allowed to outweigh care for the 
welfare of their own children can never be expected to be influenced by such a 


CONSCIENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY 257 


No one can fail to recognize, however, that upon vast 
numbers no amount of care with reference to these 
matters can have much practical effect. Thousands 
of children are born into families, thousands of men are 
forced into occupations, where all environments are 
almost wholly vicious. What then? Is their condi¬ 
tion hopeless? Presumably not. Probably no spirit’s 
condition is hopeless except as a result of a conscious 
cultivation of that which is known to be wrong. That 
this is so seems to be a logical inference from another 
fact not yet indicated. The fact is this—that, altho 
the mind may keep stored in its subconscious region 
everything w T ith which it has come in contact (page 
58), it chiefly uses for immediate practical guidance 
such thoughts or experiences only as by repetition it 
has accustomed itself to use. A man who has merely 
read once a treatise on chemistry will seldom recall its 
teachings. But if he have studied the treatise often, 
and confirmed its deductions by experiments in the 
laboratory, he may make its principles and expositions 
regulative of almost every thought and feeling of his 
life. A man who has merely been told of the methods 
of representing notes in printed music, and on the keys 
of a piano, will seldom recall what he has heard, but if 
he have practised on a piano for four or five hours a 
day for years, he will have acquired, as a lifelong 

minor consideration as the welfare of the community at large. The community 
must compel them to recognize its claims through legal enactments.— Extract 
Irom an article by the author on “The Need of Legislation to Prevent the Portrayal 
of the Details of Crime." 


258 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


possession, certain characteristics of thought and action 
which pertain to only a musician. It is not merely the 
fact, therefore, of having an evil environment, and, for 
that matter, an evil psychical or physical inheritance, 
that determines for evil one’s material or spiritual 
future. This is determined also by the fact of having 
yielded to the influence of the environment, of having 
repeated in thought and practised in deed the evil that 
was in the environment. Many a person, amid the 
worst surroundings, has not done this. These have 
seemed to arouse in him merely a repugnance against 
the evil. He has followed his conscience, at first, per¬ 
haps, only blindly, but, nevertheless, gradually, to¬ 
ward a place of comparative elevation and enlighten¬ 
ment. It is the duty of home, society, and church to 
recognize these facts, and to aim their efforts in such 
ways as to incite men to the repetition of that which 
shall cultivate habits of the highest quality. 

Now how shall the cultivation of these, so far as 
they are religious, be brought about? It is natural for 
some to suppose and argue that this can be best done 
through a repetition of the doctrines and practises of the 
Church as exprest in its various rituals and ordinances. 
That these have some influence in the desired direction 
is undeniable; but it would be easy to show that this 
influence does not always follow from them necessarily, 
as well as to show that, when it does follow, it is owing 
to something else than themselves. Many a man who 
hears the dogmas of the Church repeated every Sunday 


CONSCIENCE AND THE CHURCH 259 

fails entirely to accept them in any such way as to 
cause them to become regulative principles of his 
thoughts; and many a devotee who joins, every time 
that he has an opportunity, in certain formal cere¬ 
monials of his church does not give the slightest evi¬ 
dence of being controlled in the bargainings of business 
life by the Spirit that was in the Christ. 

Nevertheless, in some cases, all must acknowledge 
that these methods of the churches do appear effective. 
An apparent cause, however, is not necessarily an actual 
cause. Very much of the upright life which, in en¬ 
lightened countries, the Church attributes to nothing 
aside from its own methods, may be found manifesting 
itself, in an equally efficient manner, in a country with 
a church pursuing entirely different methods. There 
is as much upright life in Norway or Scotland as in 
Greece or Spain. This would not be the case, if up¬ 
rightness depended upon the methods of any particular 
church. If not upon the methods, then the result, 
wherever it exists, must depend upon something that 
can accompany different methods. What is this? 
What is invariably present wherever any methods of 
the Church tend to produce uprightness of character? 
There is but one answer, and everybody whose mind 
is unbiased will admit it. That which invariably tends 
to produce uprightness of character among people in 
general is uprightness of character manifested by those 
who influence them. The methods of any church ele¬ 
vate the masses in the degree in which the teachers, 


260 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOJST 


preachers, and members of that church are persons of 
exceptionally elevated character. If not; if, for in¬ 
stance, the words of an official of a church profess re¬ 
gard and consideration for his fellows, and, at the same 
time, his actions show disregard and lack of considera¬ 
tion, the people to whom he ministers are far more apt 
to accept the lesson taught by his secular example than 
by his ecclesiastical professions. Often, in such a case, 
the only thing on their part that can save their minds 
from an entirely erroneous, and, if the subject pre¬ 
sented concern religion, an irreligious, inference is an 
exercise of rationality sufficient to perceive the logical 
incongruity between words and deeds; and to ascribe 
the wrong practise not to a wrong theory, but to a fail¬ 
ure to join theory and practise together—a fact which 
furnishes one more proof of the importance, when con¬ 
sidering the interests of even a very ritualistic church, 
of having the mind trained to act rationally. Here, as 
in other conditions already indicated, it is essential to 
recognize that rational action is to the spirit what self- 
defense is to the body. 

The overbalancing effect of example as contrasted 
with profession is popularly recognized in the maxim 
that “actions speak louder than words.” Every maxim 
of this kind has usually underlying it the results not only 
of practical experience, but of philosophic reasoning. 
The latter in this case clearly connects what has just 
been said with the general conception of spiritual in¬ 
fluence already so many times presented. We have 


EXAMPLE AND PROFESSION 


261 


found, as a result of noticing the condition of a patient 
in a case of hypnotism, trance, or fever, that the mind 
subconsciously receives impressions in ways that ac¬ 
cord with such methods as are attributable to mind¬ 
reading, whereas consciousness receives them through 
the eye or ear. It follows, therefore, that, if a man 
think or feel one thing and say another, his thoughts 
or feelings may influence his audience through sub- 
consciousness in one direction, while, at the same time, 
his words may influence them through consciousness in 
another direction. It has been shown, too, in this 
chapter that the influence through subconsciousness is 
that of the two which has the more determining effect 
upon conscience and presumably by consequence upon 
character. The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, 
that, if a man while preaching love think hate— i.e., if 
he be malicious or self-seeking in his methods of dealing 
with his fellows, then it is these tendencies which chiefly^ 
influence those who hear him, tho, at the same time, 
they apparently accept his words as true. There have 
been few times and places in Europe, during almost 
twenty centuries, in which preachers have not pro¬ 
claimed the love of the Christ and the importance of 
regulating life according to the principles of the golden 
rule. Yet, during the majority of these centuries, 
those to whom their preaching was addrest have never 
dreamed of attempting to apply what has been heard 
by the ear to existing conditions as manifested in tyr¬ 
anny and cruelty. Even amid the boasted enlighten- 



262 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


ment of our own clay, how few are the minds in which 
the precepts of the Gospel have taken such deep sub¬ 
conscious lodgment that they really exert a controlling 
influence upon the dictates of conscience! All these 
conditions become intelligible the moment that we 
apprehend that it is the inner thoughts and feelings, 
often the unconscious motives of a man, rather than 
his protest opinions, that he is the more likely to com¬ 
municate to those about him. 

This being so, how futile to accomplish any effective 
reformation or elevation of character are any kinds or 
methods of rituals or rites designed to address the mind 
through only the ear or eye! Their partial influence no 
one can deny; but to suppose that they can be effect¬ 
ive irrespective of the character of him who admin¬ 
isters or of those who administer them—which accords 
with one of the doctrines of the unreformed churches— 
or that by whomever administered they are essential, 
is to manifest ignorance and disregard not only of the 
character, but of the existence of the subconscious 
spiritual nature. No wonder that the prophets even 
of Israel should have declared concerning such a con¬ 
ception: (1 Sam. 15; 22), “Hath the Lord as great de¬ 
light in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the 
voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than 
sacrifice”; (Ps. 4; 5), “Offer the sacrifices of righteous¬ 
ness;” and (Prov. 21; 3), “To do justice and judgment 
is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” In the 
New Testament, too, we read (Ileb. 10; 11), “And every 


IMITATION OF THE CHRIST 263 

priest standeth daily ministering and offering the same 
sacrifices, which can never take away sin”; (Heb. 13; 
16), “But to do good and to communicate forget not; 
for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”; (1 Cor. 
1; 14), “I thank God that I baptized none of you but 
Crispus and Gaius.” (V. 17), “For Christ sent me not 
to baptize but to preach the Gospel; not with the wis¬ 
dom of words”; (2; 7), “but we speak the wisdom of 
God”; (2; 16), “We have the mind of Christ,” and 
(11; 1), “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of 
Christ.” 

For the conception of Christian influence exprest in 
this, last quotation, the whole trend of thought in the 
present chapter has been preparing us. The call most 
frequently upon the lips of the Christ was “Follow me.” 
A profound knowledge of human nature and of its needs 
underlay it. All his most efficient disciples, ever since, 
have repeated it, either explicitly or implicitly. So 
far as they have influenced the world for good, they 
have never done this merely or mainly by causing men 
to accept certain dogmas or rites. To accept or prac¬ 
tise these, and to form habits of doing so, may aid in 
the culture of conduct, but infinitely less than does 
that which every church, at times, supplies, namely, 
association with those of pure and elevated personal 
character. These, like the great Master whom they 
follow, draw men into kindred discipleship, because, 
in the depths of the subconscious nature, they subtly 
incline to the constant practise of righteousness that 


2G4 TIIE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


most powerful of all human reformatory agencies—the 
spirit of imitation. All the reasons, however, why this 
is so can not be presented except in connection with 
what is to be discust in the chapter following. 


CHAPTER XII 


CHRISTIAN FAITH AS AFFECTED BY CONSIDERING 
SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 


Suggestion Influences One Differently When in a Conscious and in a 
Subconscious State—In Either State, He Surrenders Control of His 
Subconscious Mentality to One Alone in Whom He Has Confidence 
—Importance of Noticing This Influence of Personality—Its Rela¬ 
tion to Christian Faith and Conversion—To Preaching and Re¬ 
vivals—Faith Not Peculiar to Christianity—Nature of Christian 
Faith—Faithfulness and Fidelity Essential to It—But Not Perfec¬ 
tion of Character—Faith as Influenced by the Agencies Employed 
by the Church, as in Formulation—Error Necessarily Introduced 
Into This—Two Illustrations—Influence of Church Authority— 
Influence Upon Faith of the Historic Christ—How Faith Necessi¬ 
tates Freedom of Mental Action—Scriptural Warrant for This. 


Christians, as a rule, while admitting that Chris¬ 
tianity should influence conscience and conduct, claim 
that it should be expected to do this only indirectly, 
through first influencing faith. They quote the pas¬ 
sage from Hab. 2; 4, so often repeated in the New 
Testament, “The just shall live by faith/’ and ask how 
can one live, or be saved by this, unless the reasons for 
having it have been made known to him? And what 
are such influences as are exerted by the dogmas and 
other agencies of the Church, except methods causing 
these reasons to be known? In answer, it must be 
admitted that faith—rational faith which only becomes 
a rational man—can not be awakened without reasons; 
but it need not be admitted that the most effective 

265 


266 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


reasons for having faith can be afforded by such meth¬ 
ods as those indicated. Let us notice in this chapter 
why ; in accordance with the conceptions already pre¬ 
sented, this need not be admitted. 

According to these conceptions, there are, in certain 
cases, tendencies of the mind coming from its inner 
region of subconsciousness which dominate its conscious 
thought and action. These tendencies, so far as they 
may be due to the agency of other minds, seem to re¬ 
sult from suggestions wdiich may be given by either 
very explicit and emphatic statements and examples, 
or by the contrary. The suggestions, after being re¬ 
ceived by the mind, are developed in it by subconscious 
processes until in some men they become so powerful 
as to influence all habitual opinions and practises. 
The development may take place while consciousness 
is inactive, as, occasionally, in fever, hypnotism, and 
trance, or while it is active. If inactive, it may exert 
no perceptible influence over the suggestion. If active, 
the exercise of conscious discrimination, as indicated 
on page 152, may assist both in determining the form 
of the suggestion w T hen received and in developing it. 
In both cases, however, so far as can be ascertained, 
subconscious intellection manifests the same method. 
It accepts the suggestion, and develops it, according to 
laws determining its own inward processes. The ac¬ 
ceptance of the suggestion, in the case of fever, hypno¬ 
tism, or trance, is due to a surrender or waiving of in¬ 
fluence on the part of the conscious mind—in fever, 


SUBCONSCIOUSNESS AND SUGGESTION 267 


because there is too much weakness to resist and not 
surrender; and in hypnotism and trance, because there 
is no strong wish to do otherwise. This is proved by 
the fact that some men can not be hypnotized, and 
comparatively few can go into a trance. By many, 
therefore, the methods used in order to make one lose 
his consciousness can be successfully resisted. But 
even where there is no loss of consciousness, where the 
mind apparently remains in a normal state, the sug¬ 
gestion that controls the subconscious processes may 
be due to a surrender analogous in kind tho much less 
complete in degree. Instances of this form of surrender 
many of us can recall from our own experience. We 
have said things and done things different from what 
not only our conscious reason and judgment, but our 
better inclination would approve; and all this ap¬ 
parently because some one, in some mysterious and 
occult way, has influenced us through suggestions given 
to our subconscious nature. 

Now in what circumstances do our minds make 
either a complete or a partial surrender of conscious 
self-control? Almost invariably, so far as can be ascer¬ 
tained, it is when another person so affects us that we 
are willing to be controlled by his suggestion; in other 
words, when we have sufficient confidence, or, as used 
in a broad sense, faith in him for the kind of control 
that in the circumstances his suggestion needs to exer¬ 
cise. This can be affirmed even of cases in which a 
man—as, for instance, one who goes into a professional 


268 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


trance—may be supposed to hypnotize himself. His 
own personal will then causes him to surrender his own 
conscious to his own subconscious nature. Usually, 
however, he surrenders to some one else—a spiritist 
medium to the person who comes to consult him, a 
hypnotic patient to a hypnotizer; and when the in¬ 
fluence is exerted in connection with continued con¬ 
sciousness, as in the sphere of society, politics, or re¬ 
ligion—when the surrender is made to some lover, 
pleader, or exhorter—it stands to reason, in all such 
cases, that a man surrenders to some one in whom, for 
some cause, he has confidence. In a case of hypnotism 
the result is expected to be merely temporary and 
comparatively unimportant. Therefore the mind in¬ 
fluenced need have confidence in merely the skill and 
professional honesty of the operator. In other cases, 
as in that of religion, the result is represented, and often 
expected, to be of permanent and profound importance. 
Therefore the mind, before it can yield to the influence, 
needs to have the greatest possible confidence in the 
one to whom the surrender is expected to be made. 
This fact becomes more apparent in view of that which 
has already been pointed out as the most noteworthy 
difference between the conditions in the methods allied 
to hypnotism and those allied to religion, namely, the 
fact that, in the former, the conscious mind allows 
itself to do nothing, sometimes not enough to remain 
aware of its own identity; whereas, in the other state, 
the mind remains in the highest degree alert, the same 


FAITH IN SELF AND FORMS 


269 


principle applying here as in inspiration, as explained 
on pages 92 to 96. Even in that ecstatic condition 
in which, as in the frenzy of fanaticism, the conscious 
reason seems to be paralyzed, it is, nevertheless, very 
wide-awake, as compared with the slumber which char¬ 
acterizes—sometimes, but not always—the subject of 
hypnotism. 

Extremely important for us to notice here is the 
connection between the action of the mind, when sub¬ 
consciously receiving or developing suggestions, and 
the influence upon this mind of personality. As has 
been said, this personality may be one’s own. A man 
may hypnotize himself; or, without doing this con¬ 
sciously, he may do it in effect by surrendering the 
whole drift of his thought to his own inner instincts 
and impulses. Thus Milton, Wordsworth, and Napo¬ 
leon, at a time when no outside person recognized that 
for which they were fitted, are said to have had faith 
in themselves. Usually, however, that which awakens 
faith is some other one’s personality. Occasionally, 
this statement may seem disputable. But even then, 
as when one’s faith is awakened by a book, it is a ques¬ 
tion whether he is not influenced really by the person¬ 
ality behind the book. As for effects produced by the 
dogmas and ordinances of the Church, it might be 
argued that it is less these than the personality of 
parents who accept them that influences the faith of 
children, as well as that it is the individual or collect¬ 
ive personality of those who administer or attend the 


270 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSP1RATION 


services that influences the faith of others. At any 
rate, no one can deny that such is mainly the case. 
There may be differences, too, in the quality and quan¬ 
tity of the suggestions that prove influential. Mere 
words may have a certain effect. A man may hypno¬ 
tize himself, as it were, by repeating a prayer, as in 
incantation. A priest may hypnotize him by waving 
in front of his eyes a crucifix or the eucharist; but, even 
in the latter case, the influence of the personal char¬ 
acter of the priest, as shown in the preceding chapter, 
may be very much greater than that of the mere mate¬ 
rial symbol which is used. 

For these reasons, when we are searching for that 
which is best fitted to influence religious faith, we 
should not be satisfied with anything that fails to 
present the most exalted conception of religious per¬ 
sonality. It is only in the degree in which the sug¬ 
gestion of this is wholly what it should be that the faith 
which is awakened can exert a wholly regenerating in¬ 
fluence. Why this is so is easy to explain. When 
men have sufficient confidence in another to surrender 
their subconscious mentality to his suggestions, they 
can not do otherwise than begin to imitate his modes of 
thinking, feeling, and acting. In other words, they can 
not do otherwise than begin to develop logically the 
suggestions which they have received from this person 
with reference to either theory or conduct, their minds, 
in these regards, acting in exact analogy to the way in 
which a hypnotized man accepts and fulfills the sug- 


FAITH IN PERSONALITY 


271 


gestions of the hypnotizer (see page 116). As indi¬ 
cated already on page 120, the story of the conversion 
of the thief upon the cross beside that of Jesus (Luke 
23; 40-43) corresponds entirely to what might be in¬ 
ferred from a knowledge of the methods through which 
the human mind must be influenced—in case there 
be any such thing as a subconscious spiritual nature, 
or a religious effect produced upon it. The thief 
might have protest to believe in the Christ, and not 
done so. But, in case that which he had seen and 
heard had really convinced him of the supreme, and, 
for this reason, divine quality of the Spirit that was in 
the Christ, from that moment the acceptance of this 
fact with the new premise from which all his mental 
subconscious processes were to be developed, would 
have been enough to change his entire conceptions of 
life and of its obligations. If from that time forward 
he had really believed the love manifested by the Christ 
to be the sovereign principle ruling in heaven, and 
himself to have been called to be a citizen of that 
heaven, there is no psychological reason why this 
premise and the endeavor in his own experience to 
carry it out logically should not have made him in 
spirit and, so far as possible with his physical frailties, 
in earthly relations also, a citizen of the heavenly 
kingdom. 

There may be sound philosophy, therefore, in the 
theory that true religious life may be traceable to faith 
awakened by preaching, or by other agencies used in 


272 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 


the Church. But we must not forget the overbalancing 
influence also of the preacher, or officiator. As for the 
preaching, it seems to be in accordance with one of the 
most indisputable of nature’s laws, that a man, through 
the workings of subconscious mental or spiritual proc¬ 
esses, should become that which he is told that he may 
become. There may be much truth, too, in the theory 
that religious life may result from a very sudden con¬ 
version. It may be true besides this, inasmuch as the 
subconscious nature is influenced by suggestion im¬ 
parted in connection with examples unconsciously set 
by individuals still more than by their conscious words 
and deeds (see page 261), that this sudden conversion 
may often take place in connection with a general 
movement such as is termed a revival, in which vast 
multitudes are simultaneously prompted to recognize 
their religious obligations. It is a mistake, however, 
to suppose that revivals are peculiar to a few favored 
sects of Christians, or even to Christianity. All human 
communities accepting any possible form of religion— 
from North American Indians to Arabian Mohamme¬ 
dans—have, at different times, become subject to these 
phenomena. Wherever the revivals have occurred, 
too, the overflow in the mind of influence from the 
subconscious and the consequent whelming, to some 
extent, of the conscious, with its necessarily rational 
control, has resulted in a certain amount of irrational, 
and therefore deleterious, action. Even in the day of 
Pentecost, Peter found it necessary to say (Acts 2; 15), 


SCRIPTURAL FAITII 


273 


“ These are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but 
the third hour of the day.” Both the generally bene¬ 
ficial effect of these revivals, issuing in many a sudden 
conversion, and their occasional excesses and injurious 
effects are explicable according to the theories con¬ 
necting the subconscious and the religious as advanced 
in this book. 

The same theories enable us to recognize that faith, 
too, is not peculiar, as is sometimes supposed, to Chris¬ 
tianity. Only the declaring of faith to be the guiding 
religious principle is peculiar. As such, it is related to 
the revelation of the Christ in much the same way as 
induction as a philosophic principle is related to the 
writings of Bacon. Induction had been practised for 
centuries before the time of Bacon. What he did was 
to recognize the fact, and emphasize the importance 
of it. In a similar way, the Christ recognized and 
emphasized the importance of faith. 

Now, having noticed what is the source of faith, let 
us consider, for a little, its nature. The Scriptures tell 
us in Heb. 11; 1, that faith is “the evidence of things 
not seen”— i.e., the evidence in consciousness, augmented 
by all the comprehension of which the conscious mind 
is capable, of an influence beyond or below the reach 
of consciousness; of an influence which, tho manifested 
in its results, is not in itself perceptible. At first 
thought, the reader may be inclined to think that, 
while there may be in faith evidences of impulses, 
whims, ideals, hopes, that actuate some people, there 


274 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

is no evidence, as is now to be maintained, of what may 
be termed the dominance of subconscious intellection 
as the latter is described in Chapters III and IV. But 
let him reflect a little. The Christ, in speaking in 
Luke 15; 17, of the turning-point in the life of the 
prodigal son, says that “he came to himself.” This 
is the exact language in which almost every one de¬ 
scribes the way in which a man who has been insane^ 
intoxicated, or asleep gets out of this state into one that 
is normal and rational. What the Christ evidently 
meant was that at this time the prodigal came to a 
consciousness of his own mind and life, especially in 
their higher spiritual relations—to a consciousness^ 
therefore, of those promptings of the better subcon¬ 
scious or spiritual self which ought to be supreme in 
every rational being. It is because of bringing one to 
a consciousness of these that conscience imparts a feel¬ 
ing of obligation. 

The fact alone of coming to consciousness in the 
sense just indicated might not make a man of faith, 
much less a man of Christian faith. Faith is deter¬ 
mined not by the mere recognition, but by the enthrone¬ 
ment of these inward promptings; and Christian faith 
by the enthronement of the particular promptings to 
which the Christ directed attention. At the same time, 
a recognition of these promptings in any form must 
tend to make one correct his conscious by his subcon¬ 
scious intellection, and thus tend in the direction of 
faith. 


CHRISTIAN FAITII 


275 


Notice too that, as thus interpreted, faith is the 
evidence of obedience to a controlling tendency di¬ 
recting not merely toward opinion, but, as has already 
been shown in other connections, toward practise; for 
faith impels toward every direction in which a man can 
exercise conscious intelligence. “Shew me thy faith 
without thy works,” says the Apostle, in James 2; 18, 
“and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” Ac¬ 
cordingly, we may say that in connection with any 
exercise of feeling, thought, or will faith involves a 
condition of conscious dependence upon a subconscious 
source of spiritual intelligence and guidance. Faith 
includes in its range, therefore, not only mental assent 
and belief, but also emotional and volitional acquies¬ 
cence and loyalty; in fact, all that is indicated by the 
terms faithfulness and fidelity. 

Once more, it needs to be noticed that, even with 
faithfulness and fidelity characterizing a man’s faith, 
these do not necessarily insure perfection of character. 
A fanatic may have these, and be very far from being 
perfect. This is so, in the first place, because of the 
dependence of faith upon what one has already, through 
experience and habit, stored in subconsciousness. The 
faith itself may be genuine, and yet, working, as it 
often does, on very imperfect material—the memories 
and associations of some low form of life—its results 
may be very imperfect. In the second place, the same 
may be true because of the dependence of faith upon 
the degree and kind of conscious intelligence through 



276 TEE PS YCEOL 0GY OF INSPIRATIDE 


which the promptings from the subconscious must be 
outwardly exprest. It is impossible to suppose that 
an}^ of these when modified at all—and they are always 
modified to some extent—can assume exactly the same 
phase when passing through the conscious mind of the 
educated and of the uneducated—that they will occasion 
in both exactly the same thoughts or deeds. Here 
again we may notice the analogy between the results 
of faith and of what we term conscience. Conscience 
impels a man toward that which he thinks ought to be 
done; but, as pointed out in Chapter XI, exactly what 
it is that ought to be done is, in each case, apparently 
left to be decided by his own intelligence. A cannibal 
may suppose that he ought to eat his enemies, but an 
enlightened man that he ought to feed them. Now 
why should not an analogous principle be fulfilled in 
connection with all tendencies started in the subcon¬ 
scious mind? And if so, what are we to conclude? 
That they do not tend toward the right? Not at all— 
only that, while they tend toward this, they do not 
immediately attain it. Once more, genuine faith may 
produce imperfect results, in the third place, because 
of its dependence upon a man’s ability, even when he 
knows what should be done, to perform it. Faith, 
however strong and earnest, can not make a man cease 
to express his thoughts and feelings through his con¬ 
scious mind and body, both comparatively weak, if not 
wicked. But faith can turn his energies in the right 
direction, and he can begin to walk by it, even tho 


CREEDS AS INFLUENCING FAITH 277 


he may not, for many a long day, walk very fast or far, 
or without much stumbling. 

What has been said of the source and nature of faith 
will enable us to discuss intelligently that which was 
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this chapter, 
namely, the tracing of faith to the agencies employed 
by the Church. For our present purpose, all these 
agencies may be classed under two heads: first, those 
connected with what may be termed the authoritative 
formulation of opinions as exprest in dogmatic creeds 
or rituals, the influence of which may be dissociated 
from that of personality; and, second, those connected 
with authoritative personality, tho, as means employed 
by the Church, this may refer to the influence supposed 
to be exerted by the public office or position of the 
person rather than by his private character. Let us 
begin by considering the influence of formulation aside 
from personality. Of course, for reasons given on page 
262, the mere fact of being exerted aside from person¬ 
ality would tend to show that the effects upon faith of 
this influence can not be the most powerful possible. 
But this fact is to be considered under our next head. 
At present, let us consider the effects of formulation in 
itself. Doing so, we shall notice that its peculiarity is 
this: it presents for the substance that is to be accepted 
by what is termed faith that which is—not incidentally, 
as would be true of all such influence, but necessarily— 
a result of some mind’s conscious action. Nothing can 
be formulated in either creeds or rituals of which this 


278 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


can not be said. They always embody some con¬ 
clusion that certain men have reached as a result of 
their own thinking; and it is this conclusion that fur¬ 
nishes the premise, accepted through faith, from which 
a mind according to methods indicated on page 147, 
subconsciously develops its own thought and tendency 
to action. This is the same as to say that formulation 
aims to do for minds framed to work subconsciously a 
large part, at least, of that work which may legitimately 
be termed their own. Formulation seeks, so far as it 
can, to prevent these minds from drawing their own 
conclusions. It attempts to suppress and keep dor¬ 
mant, in a large degree at least, that in a man which, 
more nearly than anything else of wdiich we know, 
constitutes the essence of spiritual activity (see page 
55). Thus it may be said that faith in creeds or rites 
—if indeed it can be rightly termed faith—is inevitably 
connected with a lack of faith in the human mind or 
spirit; and, so, why not also in the Creator that made 
this spirit what it is? 

But more than this can be said against a phase of 
faith awakened through the agency of formulation. It 
is one thing, when influencing a man through faith, to 
present to subconscious intellection for logical develop¬ 
ment well-ascertained facts. It is another very different 
thing to present for this certain inferences that men 
have consciously drawn from these facts. The reason 
for saying this is that these latter—the inferences— 
are almost never any more than very partially true. 



CREEDS AS INFLUENCING FA1TII 279' 

They are influenced not alone by the premise from 
which they have been deduced, and by its legitimate 
unfoldment in subconsciousness (see page 152), but 
also by many surrounding conditions that are seen or 
heard during the time when the premise is in process 
of unfoldment. Were we to tell a man, while in full 
possession of his consciousness, to act like the Emperor 
William, he might be so influenced by surrounding per¬ 
sons and things and by his relations to them that, altho 
a good mimic, his representation would be quite in¬ 
complete, and, at the best, perhaps, appear like a 
caricature. But were we to hypnotize him, and leave 
the whole work to be done by subconscious mentality, 
the imitation throughout would be as perfect as a per¬ 
fect memory and power of personation could make it. 
(see page 113). So if we try to make a man, while in 
full possession of his consciousness, act out the princi¬ 
ples of the golden rule, he will go to his place of busi¬ 
ness, and perceive, in the real world about him, so 
many circumstances and conditions almost necessarily 
modifying the possibility of the exact fulfilment of this 
rule that in little that he does can its regulative in¬ 
fluence be recognized. But if we hypnotize him, and 
leave the result to subconscious mentality, almost 
everything that he appears to think or to wish will, 
probably, be in complete accord with this rule’s strict 
application (see page 113). What dogmatism does 
is to take inferences drawn by one mind consciously, 
and therefore more or less erroneously, and make 


280 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOE 

these the premises from which another mind, so far as 
allowed to work at all, must subconsciously draw its 
conclusions. What must be the result? What but 
error, error necessarily and inevitably? 

This can be shown by noticing the influence of al¬ 
most any doctrine of the Church. For the present, 
two illustrations will suffice. Take the bread and wine 
of the Lord’s Supper, and what is said of them in the 
Scriptures. If, on the one hand, these be presented 
without any dogmatic inferences that men have drawn 
from them and seek to enforce on others, subconscious 
intellection, in most cases, will accept as a premise the 
general suggestion of spiritual communion with a 
spiritual Lord, and develop it logically in such a way as 
not to interfere with the exercise of sufficient intel¬ 
ligence to recognize that many other things besides 
partaking of these elements are necessary in order to 
bring one into full possession of all that there is in the 
Christian life. But if, on the other hand, that which 
the mind accepts as a premise be the dogma which men 
have formulated as a result, not of inner subconscious 
mental processes, but of outer considerations consciously 
perceived, such as the supposed practical necessity of 
making men think it absolutely essential to partake of 
the elements—the dogma to the effect that the bread 
and wine are transformed literally into the body and 
blood of the Christ—then through the agency of faith 
the resulting conception held in subconsciousness as a 
guiding principle over the communicant’s opinion and 


FAITH NEEDS SUGGESTIVE TRUTH 281 


conduct will be the conviction that he has taken into 
his body for digestion a portion of the Lord's body; 
and that this, of itself, without further effort on his 
own part, will leaven the whole lump of his nature and 
make it like his Lord's. Nor is this kind of influence 
peculiar to a single church. In connection with dog¬ 
mas very different from the one just mentioned, there 
is often sung, especially in revival meetings, the fol¬ 
lowing: 

“Nothing either great or small 
Remains for me to do ; 

Jesus died and paid it all, 

All the debt I owe.” 

Here again, if the dogmatic wording in this form be 
not the premise presented to his mind, a man will 
have no difficulty in recognizing that other considera¬ 
tions are necessary in order to express the whole truth; 
and he will try to discern what this truth is, and let 
it alone develop that which in his inner nature prompts 
to opinion and conduct. But if his faith accept as the 
premise to be developed by subconscious logic no more 
than is formulated in these verses, he will be impelled 
to the exact level of religious attainment, and no 
higher, than the logical conclusion to be drawn from 
the statement contained in them and from it alone. 
The result will be an ideal of Christian life supposed to 
be satisfied by an endeavor to do 

“Nothing either great or small.” 

Now let us turn from the influence supposed by the 
Church to be exerted upon faith by the formulation of 


282 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


opinions as exprest in dogmatic creeds or rituals to that 
supposed to be exerted by personality. As said before 
on page 262, the Church usually is apt to connect this 
influence with that exerted by official position rather 
than by private character. How seldom is the priest 
considered to be an exemplifier of a mode of life that all 
men are expected to follow! Are there any who sup¬ 
pose that his celibacy, or his costume, or many other 
of his peculiarities are to be imitated by people in gen¬ 
eral? Is it not true that, in almost all of his relations 
to others, he appears mainly in the role of a dictator of 
a mode of life to be led not by himself, but by them? 
Notice, however, that, according to the inferences log¬ 
ically following upon the line of thought already pre¬ 
sented, anything tending to separate him in appear¬ 
ance or pursuits from those to w T hom he is supposed 
to minister must tend to lessen his influence over their 
spiritual natures. These are chiefly influenced, as shown 
on page 270, by that which induces to imitation. 
Anything therefore which can not be imitated, or even 
expected to be imitated, is, owing to its very nature, 
unfitted to influence the spirit in the highest degree 
possible. It is strange that the unreformed churches 
have never recognized, for instance, that the main rea¬ 
son for such good as they have done has been traceable 
less to the dictation and domineering of their higher 
clergy, who have stood apart from the masses, than to 
the pale faces of their priests and nuns, who, not¬ 
withstanding a garb that has tended somewhat in the 


FAITH IN TIIE CHRIST 


283 


other direction, have, nevertheless, made themselves one 
with the people, and seemed to spend their lives in 
going about among them and “doing good” (Acts 10; 
38). It is still more strange that these churches have 
never recognized to what extent their ignoring of this 
influence of personal character, and the substituting, 
for faith awakened to activity by it, a trust supposed 
to be awakened by mere dogmas and decrees, by mere 
ordinances and officials, has tended to throw into the 
shade that faith awakened by the personality of the 
Christ—or, as one might say, faith in the Spirit of the 
Christ—which alone can be at the basis of spiritual de¬ 
velopment in his follower. How can the intelligent, 
not to say the enlightened, suppose that souls when 
hungering for the bread of spiritual life can be sated 
with the stones of a material altar; or when aspiring for 
kinship with the Master of Nazareth, can imagine this 
desire fulfilled while merely witnessing the processions 
and performances of others like themselves! Such 
conceptions as these are all the more remarkable in 
view of a fact which every student of human nature 
knows. This is the fact that no regeneration of char¬ 
acter is possible except in the degree in which the sub¬ 
ject of it has, in some way, obtained an ideal of what 
his life should be that is higher and purer than the one 
that he already possesses. But whence can come this 
ideal; in fact, any ideal? It is always the creation of 
the mind that conceives it. For this, if for no other 
reason, it can never be said to be dictated from the 


284 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOK 


outside. It is never more than suggested from this; 
then, afterward, as a result of subconscious logic, it is 
developed within. 

This fact shows us why it is that what is known of the 
character and life of the Christ and of the effects of his 
work in his own and subsequent ages, slight as some 
may deem the world’s amount of accurate information 
with reference to these, is nevertheless sufficient for 
the purposes intended. Let it be granted that men, 
in enthroning him, as they have done, have robed him 
in the garments of their own ideality. The texture of 
this has been woven in the subconscious nature from 
threads of evidence suggestive of such intrinsic lofti¬ 
ness and love that the ideal resulting has been almost 
infinitely inspiring to the individual and the race. 

The fact just considered shows us again why this 
ideal, and the faith which alone can make men strive to 
realize it, never can do all that they are fitted to do for 
a mind except when this is left free to develop thought 
and action according to its own subconscious prompt¬ 
ings. As indicated on page 136, to interfere with this 
free development is to subject the mind to the rule of 
the material instead of the spiritual. But if the mind 
be left free, what then? Then we must have outward 
expressions of spiritual faith that differ both from one 
another and from the forms that gave the suggestions 
from which they were developed. If a man were a 
parrot, it might be enough for him to learn to repeat 
by rote the words of a creed. If he were an ape, it 


FAITH NEEDS FREEDOM 


285 


might be enough for him to imitate the actions of others 
in a ceremonial. But he is a man with a mind, and a 
mind—owing to the law controlling subconscious logical 
action—never gives forth that which has entered it in 
exactly the same form in which it has been received. 
No one can even plant a growing bush in soil and then 
draw it forth without finding some of the soil attached 
to its roots. Nor can he leave it in the ground for a 
season without its bearing limbs or leaves that change 
its appearance. How much less can one expect to plant 
seeds of thought in the mind, and—in case it be living— 
expect nothing to come forth different from that which 
has been placed in it! 

In view of these facts, we may perceive an element 
of divineness in the Scriptures wholly overlooked often 
by those who insist upon its literal interpretation. 
It would be almost impossible to conceive of any num¬ 
ber of ordinary men, with the tendency which almost 
all invariably manifest to become dictators or dogma¬ 
tists, devising such a method of presenting truth as is 
found in the Old and New Testaments. Think only 
of the latter. How vaguely does it indicate any system 
of theology, or any form of ecclesiastical worship or 
government? Evidently the whole intention—so far 
as results can indicate intention—was to govern a man 
by giving expression to certain principles, and to leave 
him at liberty to develop from these such forms of 
thought and practise as commended themselves to his 
individual judgment. Yet, if this were the intention, 


286 THE PSYCHOL0 G Y OF INSPIRA TION 


think how it has been thwarted! There have been 
times when no individual, even tho accepting the gen¬ 
eral facts underlying orthodoxy, was allowed to give 
expression of his personal interpretations of these, nor 
even to worship in any language other than that pie- 
scribed by authority. To-day, in many places, there 
is the same tendency. It seems neither Biblical nor 
rational. How can one justify the assuming of a right 
to use the machinery of the Church for this purpose? 
When a forest is dead, we may cut it up into houses and 
villages; but, while it is living, if we wish it to con¬ 
tinue so, we must let it alone. If the religious tendency 
in man be a development of his natural constitution, 
just as is the case with the artistic or the scientific, then 
it must fulfil the same general laws; and it is impossible 
to expect, and irrational to plan, for a time when faith 
shall manifest in doctrine or practise anything resem¬ 
bling absolute uniformity. 


CHAPTER XIII 


UNITY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AS AFFECTED BY CON¬ 
SIDERING SPIRITUAL TRUTH SUGGESTIVE 

Principles Unfolded in the Preceding Chapter Can Be Applied in All 
Religions—What Are the Most Common and Universal Religious 
Conceptions—Communications from Bad and Good Spirits—Hom¬ 
age Appeasing the First, and Soliciting Favors from the Second, 
Who Are Often Supposed to Be Heroes and Ancestors—Formu¬ 
lation of Opinions Concerning These and Their Teachings Into 
Systems of Belief, as by Copernicus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Moses, 
Mohammed, and the Christ—Christianity Not Necessarily Antago¬ 
nistic to Other Religions, as Shown by Its Holding Many Similar 
Beliefs—Acknowledging Certain of the Truths in These Religions 
Might Benefit Christianity—This Need Not Imply Acknowledging 
That Everything in Any Other System Is True — Nor Need It 
Throw Discredit Upon Missionary Effort, but Lead It to Emphasize 
in Christianity That which Is Lacking in Other Systems, and Is 
Essential in Its Own—Religious Unity—This Must Begin by First 
Acknowledging the Truth Common to All Religions. 

There is a sense in which the statement made at the 
end of the preceding chapter may be applied not only 
to the various branches of the Christian Church, but to 
the various branches of religion in general. That any 
spiritual connection exists between all these, especially 
between all of them and one’s own form of religion, 
is difficult for some men to perceive. But such a con¬ 
nection has already been suggested on page 129. In 
discussing it further, it is natural to begin by noticing 
the opinions held on the subject by the founders of 
Christianity at or near the time when it started. Few 

287 


288 THE PSYCROLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

occasions seem to have occurred in which to express 
such opinions; but when they did occur there is no 
doubt as to the meaning of the testimony which they 
present. In speaking, in Matt. 8; 10, 11, 12, of the 
R,oman centurion who was an adherent neither of the 
Jewish religion nor of the new religion of the Christ, 
the latter declares, “Verily I say unto you, I have not 
found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto 
you that many shall come from the east and west, and 
shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in 
the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the king¬ 
dom shall be cast out.” Again, the Apostle Peter, in 
speaking, in Acts 10; 35, of Cornelius, another Roman 
centurion, who, like the one just mentioned, apparently 
knew very little of either the Jewish or the Christian 
religion, makes the affirmation that “in every nation 
he that feareth him [ i.e ., God] and worketh righteous¬ 
ness is accepted with him”; and the Apostle Paul, in 
Acts 17; 23, speaking to the Greeks, who apparently 
had never before heard of Christianity, tells them that 
him (i.e., the God) “whom ye ignorantly”—not refuse 
to worship, but—“worship, him declare I unto you.” 
Limitations with reference to knowledge concerning 
religion, and mistakes with reference to religious con¬ 
duct, these early founders of Christianity recognized 
in the so-called heathen religions, but they did not 
deny to any one of them in any place a certain degree 
of revelation and illumination. “When the Gentiles 
which have not the law,” says Paul, Rom. 2; 14, 15 , 


LIBERALISM OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY 289 

"do by nature the things contained in the law, these, 
having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which 
show the work of the law written in their hearts, their 
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the 
meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.” 
These quotations seem to show that the founders of 
Christianity had a theory different from those who, 
a century or two later, were terming all non-Christian 
conceptions false or devilish. It is important to em¬ 
phasize, too, the fact that had they, or other early 
Christian missionaries, used such terms, or held a theory 
that necessitated their using them, they would have 
had harder work than they did have in converting the 
intelligent and loyal people of the world—those loyal 
to the traditions of their own families and races—to 
Christianity. The same principle may be applied to 
those who to-day are missionaries in foreign lands. 
Most Christians know what is meant by saying that the 
Christ becomes the Savior of a man, not by doing more 
for him than has already been done, but by being more 
for him, by being recognized as such. In the same way, 
he must become the Savior of mankind not by doing 
more than he has done for it, but by being more, and 
by being recognized as such. If the passage in Haggai 
2; 7, "the desire of all nations shall come,” refer to the 
Christ, as Christians are given to saying, the effort of 
the Christian should be to reveal to the non-Christian 
in what sense the historic Christ is fitted to satisfy the 
religious desires and conceptions of all men. 


290 TIIE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 

In order to reveal this, it is important to find out, 
first, so far as possible, exactly what are the most com¬ 
mon, because the most universal, religious desires and 
conceptions. Fortunately, it is not difficult in our day 
to determine this. The religious, as well as other de¬ 
velopments of almost all people, have been quite thor¬ 
oughly studied; and there are existing in our own time, 
in Africa, Asia, Australia, and America, races of the 
most primitive character, which, therefore, may be 
supposed to have the most primitive form of religion. 

When we ask what this primitive form is, it seems, in 
all cases, to be very nearly the same. It is some form 
of spirit-worship; and the spirits that are worshiped 
are, as a rule, believed to be those that have lived on 
the earth and departed, and that survive in a more 
ethereal state. The belief in the survival of the spirit 
is indicated not merely by the fact that consultations 
are held with those who, in some mysterious way, are 
supposed to communicate with the dead, but by the 
well-nigh universal custom of burying with the dead 
certain of their belongings, which it is supposed that— 
so far as these can be turned into that which is spiritual 
—they may need and use in the ethereal life. In 
Christian communities, as intimated on page 75, this 
well-nigh universal belief in the survival of the spirit is 
often attributed to imagination. If by imagination, 
as thus used, be meant an experience seemingly seen 
or heard objectively, which, nevertheless, is really seen 
or heard only subjectively, the theory is plausible, and 


UNIVERSAL RELIGIOUS CONCEPTIONS 291 

psychologists are warranted in discussing it. But if, 
by imagination, in this case, be meant the faculty of 
the mind which causes a child or a man to build up 
images, as in reverie or poetry, or, as we ordinarily say, 
to fancy things, then we must reject the explanation 
as illogical. One consideration that renders it so was 
indicated on page 76. Another is the fact that an 
exactly identical conception of the life hereafter has 
been imprest in this way upon the minds of all men 
whatsoever, whether uncivilized or highly civilized, 
whether aboriginal Africans, Asians, Australians, Amer¬ 
icans, or ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, or mod¬ 
ern East Indians, Chinese, Japanese, or spiritists of 
Europe or America. It is difficult to believe that this 
uniformity of conception with reference to condi¬ 
tions in the other world is due to the exercise of what 
we ordinarily mean by imagination. If that were the 
case, each man who used his imagination, in order to 
originate a conception, would give us a different one. 
That this is so will appear upon examination of the 
avowed poetic and therefore confessedly imaginative 
statements in some of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman 
writings, as well as of those of some of the early Chris¬ 
tians, or of Dante, Milton, and Klopstock. The descrip¬ 
tions of all of these differ very greatly. But when we 
turn to primitive sources and find evidences that the re¬ 
ports received were, professedly, under hypnotic, trance, 
or clairvoyant conditions, then we usually find sub¬ 
stantial agreement. This is not a mere unwarranted 


292 THE PSYCHOL0 GY OF INSPIRATION 


statement that can not be proved. Any man wishing 
to prove it can do so by exercising no more patience, 
perseverance, caution, or judgment than would be 
necessary in searching for any other fact. All that is 
necessary is to make a study of reports of this kind 
communicated to oneself or collected from the testi¬ 
mony of others, and, whether originally given in Eng¬ 
lish, French, German, East Indian, Chinese, or Japanese, 
these reports will be found in all essentials to coincide. 
Nor does it make any difference whether the descrip¬ 
tions of heaven and hell be given by a man who has 
been a lifelong student of science like Swedenborg, 
or by a half-idiot like a negro in an African forest. 
Through all, the outlines of the same heaven and hell 
can be distinctly recognized. This is no result that can 
be attributed to individual imagination. It must be 
attributed to a law universally fulfilled wherever there 
seems to be the slightest reason for supposing that we 
are getting the records of what is perceived by the sub¬ 
conscious or spiritual nature. The conditions, in this 
case, are such as to leave us only one of two possible 
conclusions. We must believe either that the truth 
is indicated in them, or else believe that the human 
mind has been so constructed as to produce for us a 
universal and stupendous lie. 

Besides the recognition, in primitive religion, of the 
continued existence of the spirits of those who have 
left the earth, there is always a recognition of a differ¬ 
ence in character between these spirits. Some are 


GOOD AND EVIL SPIRITS 


293 


thought to be evil, or, as spiritists prefer to put it, un¬ 
developed; and some to be good, or highly developed. 
It is usually asserted, too, that the most highly devel¬ 
oped seldom, if ever, communicate with men. The au¬ 
thor is acquainted with one often consulting such sources 
who has assured him that the most convincing argu¬ 
ment in favor of their trustworthiness is furnished him 
by the fact that his own father—a man of exceptional 
purity and reserve—has never been represented as 
being the source of such communications. This con¬ 
clusion, perhaps, would be considered by most spiritists 
unwarranted. They usually are ready to admit that 
large parts of the so-called communications to individ¬ 
uals are frivolous and indicative of frivolous sources. 
But the claim is made that there are also indications of 
sources of an exceedingly elevating and inspiring char¬ 
acter. The most common theory seems to be that 
spirits are not necessarily worse or better than can be 
found among those that are seen and heard in this world, 
and that whatever may come from them is addrest to 
the mind and is to be judged by the appeal that it makes 
to reason. 

The recognition of a difference in character between 
spirits leads, very naturally, as will be perceived, to 
two forms of what may be termed homage, namely, 
that paid to evil spirits, and to good spirits. The evil 
are represented as needing to be appeased, lest they 
should do harm, and the good as deserving of solicita¬ 
tion because capable of conferring benefit. Both forms 


294 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 

of homage are found not only among uncivilized, but 
among civilized races. We have all heard of the 
hideous rites of North American Indians, but, even in 
countries like China and Japan, hideous images can be 
seen representing evil spirits before whom one can 
readily fancy that hideous rites alone would be in 
place. Only comparatively ignorant people are much 
influenced by fear of these evil spirits; but in both 
China and Japan many are seen apparently making 
them offerings. The homage given to good spirits 
usually assumes two forms, which, however, are closely 
connected. These two are the worship of heroes and 
of ancestors. In reading the Greek and Roman classics, 
we think mainly of hero-worship; but if we study their 
customs, we find that, in some cases, their penates, or 
household gods, were their own ancestors. In other 
cases the heroes whom they worshiped were men of 
ancient times and, being so, were also men from whom 
most of the people imagined that they themselves 
were descended. So with the ancestral worship of 
China and Japan. There is more hero-worship con¬ 
nected with it than we ordinarily suppose. The author 
himself has seen in Japan the caskets containing the 
remains of Shoguns, famous warriors, who died some¬ 
thing like three hundred years ago, carried in pro¬ 
cession and set opposite a long table at which, in sup¬ 
posed communion with them, the prominent characters 
of a province partook of a feast and enjoyed a per¬ 
formance of dancing and music. So the worship of 


RELIGIOUS LEADERS 


295 


ancestors in Japan is connected with some worship 
also of heroes, this word worship , however, being, as a 
Buddhist priest assured the author, altogether too sa¬ 
cred a term to apply to a mere expression of a belief 
on the part of the people of a possibility of obtaining 
aid from ancestors pleased with all endeavors to carry 
out the traditions of their families. 

These endeavors seem to lead necessarily, after a 
time, to more or less reasoning with reference to the 
real or supposed desires or designs of these ancestors. 
It is natural, therefore, that what is believed concern¬ 
ing them, or concerning the life most in accord with 
their supposed characters, should come, by certain 
more thoughtful and rational men, to be formulated in 
writing, just as in time such men come to formulate in 
writing all matters of common opinion. It is at this 
stage that many of the more intelligent people cease 
to be guided by seers or mediums, whose powers are 
apparently attributable as much to physical or nervous 
as to psychical or spiritual traits, and to be guided by 
the great thinkers. Of those of these thinkers who 
have had the most influence in their own and subse¬ 
quent times, Confucius, while not denying, ignored the 
spiritual, believing that what humanity needed was a 
system of morality fitted to produce the best results 
in this material life, and that, if this system were formu¬ 
lated and practised here, it would, of itself, afford the 
best possible preparation for a spiritual life. Buddha, 
on the other hand, ignored the material world, confi- 


296 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

ning himself to teaching methods of ridding the spirit 
from the influence of the body, and from interest in 
mere bodily pursuits. Zoroaster tried to balance the 
spiritual, or the good, against the bodily, or the evil, 
and seemed to think that, altho the former would ulti¬ 
mately triumph, the influence of each in this world is 
very nearly equal. Moses and Mohammed both di¬ 
rected attention to the spiritual, but to this, mainly, 
perhaps, as embodied in the material. The Christ 
directed attention to both, altho he separated them, 
admitting, however, their inseparability in this world; 
but, while doing so, he insisted that the spiritual should 
be considered supreme, and that to its direction and con¬ 
trol the material, in all cases, should be subordinated. 

It is unfortunate, in some regards, that Christianity 
was trained in its youth to the methods of the Roman 
Empire. In this latter, all will recall the emphasis 
given to written laws and government by force. Any 
system, perhaps, after existing for centuries sur¬ 
rounded almost exclusively by such methods would 
have been influenced to express its doctrines in written 
creeds and to manifest its discipline through ordained 
authority. Nor is it strange that the time came when 
any one who was outside the body acknowledging 
these doctrines, or controlled by this authority, should 
have been deemed outside the pale of that which was 
considered to be the kingdom of God. Nor is it 
strange that many, even in our own times, should 
hold the theory that Christianity, like the Roman 


COMMUNICATION WITH SPIRITS 297 

Empire with which it first marched to its victories, is 
necessarily in its very character antagonistic to other 
religions, and before it can obtain recognition for it¬ 
self must obtain from its converts a repudiation of 
them. Some of our zealous missionaries—but, for¬ 
tunately, not all of them (see page 73)—feel it to be 
their first duty to oppose such a belief as that in 
spirits, whether bad or good, or in paying homage to 
ancestors, or to the precepts of a Confucius, or the 
doctrines of a Buddha. But why? Those who lived 
in Biblical times certainly believed in spirits both bad 
and good, and that a man could communicate with 
them. Innumerable instances to prove this can be 
cited. Not only were evil spirits supposed to take 
possession of mind and body, and to need to be cast 
out, as related in Mark 5; 1-14; but good spirits 
were supposed to control and to make their sub¬ 
jects mediums of the truth (Gen. 41; 38: Num. 24; 2: 
1 Sam. 19; 20: II. Chronicles 15; 1: Matt. 3; 16, etc.). 
We are told that two angels came to visit Lot (Gen. 
19; 1); that one wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32; 24, 
30); that one talked with Daniel (Dan. 9; 21), and 
that two appeared to three of the disciples (Matt. 17; 
3). All the conditions of a modern seance are present 
in the story of the warning given Saul by the Witch 
of Endor (1 Sam. 28; 7-25); and certain spiritists 
insist that similar conditions were realized in con¬ 
nection with the appearance of the crucified Christ to 
his disciples as related in John 20; 19-29. 


298 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


Besides this, those who lived in Biblical times seem 
to have believed in something resembling homage 
rendered to ancestors. What was their Jehovah, if 
not the God of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 32; 9: Rom. 
4; 2, 9, 12, 16)? Now if, in the early days of the 
Church, the accepting of these beliefs did not prevent 
one from accepting Christianity also, why should it do 
so in our own days? And how is it with accepting 
the teachings of the great religious leaders? A few 
years ago the author attended a recitation in ethics in 
the Doshisha, the college founded by the American 
Congregational missionaries in Kobe, Japan. The 
text-book from which the students were reciting was 
by Confucius. Evidently the missionaries had found 
that there was no greater antagonism between his 
system and Christianity than the Apostle Paul had 
found between Christianity and Platonism (Acts 17; 
23). If the reader will turn back to page 203, he will 
find indicated in what sense it may be true that there 
is much less antagonism than is sometimes supposed 
between the same system and Buddhism or Mohamme¬ 
danism. Nor is there any reason for holding that 
even reincarnation, as taught by the one, or a mate¬ 
rial heaven, as pictured by the other—tho neither 
doctrine, of course, in its details—is necessarily in¬ 
consistent with the system of the Gospel (Mark 9; 11- 
13: Rev. 21; 1, 2). 

There is no doubt, too, that by acknowledging the 
possibility that truth may be contained in certain of 


NON-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS IMPORTANT 299 

these systems Christianity itself might be greatly 
benefited. If Christians considered possible the con¬ 
tinued life and activity of spirits, the materialism of 
Western civilization might be perceptibly diminished; 
if they considered possible such a condition as obses¬ 
sion by evil spirits, a surrender to the promptings of 
what seem mainly, but may not be solely, men’s own 
passions and appetites might be considered more dan¬ 
gerous than at present. If, with Confucius, they im¬ 
agined that the principles of conduct should be the 
same as applied either to material or to spiritual life, 
they might realize the importance in the present of 
exercising more unselfishness and self-control. If, 
with the Buddha, they imagined the conditions of life 
hereafter to be a necessary and normal result of the 
life lived here, they might be more anxious than they 
are now to live uprightly and benevolently in this 
world. If, with Zoroaster, they gave due weight to 
the well-nigh equal power of evil and of good, they 
might be more careful to avoid coming under the 
power of the former. If, with Moses and Mohammed, 
they gave due weight to the inexorable fulfilment of 
law, they might be more careful to study and under¬ 
stand the laws of their own physical as well as moral 
being. 

All this is not the same as to say that any of these 
systems are true in all of their ramifications. What 
system is? Certainly not Christianity as it has been 
developed. But for these defects in it we do not, 


300 THE PSYCHOL OGY OF INSP1RA TION 

most of us, think it necessary to reject it wholly. 
What intelligent Christians do is to allow themselves 
to differ with reference to many things, which may be 
considered non-essential, if only they can agree with 
reference to a few things which may be considered es¬ 
sential. It has come to be recognized that the ques¬ 
tion of being a Christian or not is determined not by 
the whole contents or results of one’s thought, feeling 
or action, but by the emphasis given to certain of 
these. Why should not a similar test be applied to 
the adherents not only of the Christian, but of every 
religion? 

The objection most frequently urged against this 
view is that it throws discredit upon Christian mis¬ 
sionary effort, because it virtually renders it unneces¬ 
sary. But why? If we believe in any kind of social 
or educational reform, it is our duty to proclaim our 
opinion, and to advance the application of our meth¬ 
ods. Why should we not recognize that similar action 
is more imperative as applied to the much more im¬ 
portant matter of religion? The only logical infer¬ 
ences to be drawn from the line of thought just pre¬ 
sented are that, in advocating his own religion, one 
should try, first, to exercise charity toward others 
and not argue against any tenet of their religion that 
does not clearly conflict with some tenet that is es¬ 
sential to his own; and, second, to present to them 
from his religion that only which it is clear that other 
religions do not contain. Now what may Christianity 


PECULIARITY OF CHRISTIANITY 


301 


be said to contain which other religions do not? We 
can not answer this question by saying that it is a 
church with a Bible, or with a set of dogmas or creeds, 
or with officials, rites, or rituals. Other systems have 
all these, or what corresponds to them. What Chris¬ 
tianity has that other systems have not is this—a 
new truth, but new mainly because revealed according 
to a new method; that is, primarily, through the Christ, 
and, secondarily, through Christians who believe that, 
in some mysterious way, because of the influence upon 
them of his life and death, they are inspired and guided 
so that, while living in the world, and entering into 
all its legitimate pursuits and pleasures, they never¬ 
theless can make their earthly life a representation to 
others and a foretaste for themselves of a spiritual life 
hereafter. In order to perceive that this is that 
which is peculiar to Christianity, it is not necessary 
to believe the exact accuracy of every account in the 
Scriptures; it may be said that it is not even neces¬ 
sary to accept as wise everything that is represented 
as having been done or said by the Christ. All that 
is necessary is to recognize the fact that his whole 
mission, as in his w T ords, whether blessing little chil¬ 
dren or cursing money-changers; or as in his deeds, 
whether dining with publicans and sinners or praying 
with his disciples, whether receiving the plaudits of the 
multitudes because the son of David or allowing him¬ 
self to be sacrificed on the cross, had this end in view 
—to manifest the life of love, and through doing this, 


302 THE PSYCIIOLOGY OF INSPIRATIOH 


to draw all men into likeness with himself. His fol¬ 
lowers are Christians in the degree, and in the degree 
alone, in which they live, not exactly in the same 
particular way, but according to the same general 
method, always ready to sacrifice their own plans and 
profits, and, if absolutely necessary, their lives for the 
benefit of their fellows. 

Does any one suppose that there are any large num¬ 
ber of Confucianists, Buddhists, Parsees, Hebrews, 
Mohammedans, or Spiritists who would reject Chris¬ 
tianity if they could be brought to believe this to be 
the essential part of it? And, if influenced not to re¬ 
ject it, would it be long before very many would be 
brought to acknowledge in the Christ as well as within 
themselves the power of that vague something which 
is termed the spiritual? In fact, would it be long be¬ 
fore they would have developed out of their own 
thinking, but in a spontaneous way and in a personal 
form, some of the very dogmas of the most orthodox 
Christianity which now they reject because finding 
them presented by way of dictation and authority 
instead of suggestion? 

This question causes one to feel that the time has 
come for the world to recognize a fact which, at first, 
seems paradoxical. It is this, that, as applied to all 
different religions, nothing except the broadest charity, 
which not only allows but welcomes divergences, can 
ever lead to the acceptance by all men of a single re¬ 
ligion. As was said on page 227, no two individuals 


CHARITY AND RELIGION 


303 


can have unity of spirit except in the degree in which, 
in the presence of the other, each is free, and feels free, 
to say and to do what he chooses. This is so with 
reference to all men associating in ordinary inter¬ 
course. Why should it not be so with reference to 
those associating in religion. Once, when the author 
was young, and more uncharitably disposed than at 
present, he traveled for a time in Europe with a strenu¬ 
ous Unitarian. This man and himself seemed in com¬ 
plete religious accord— i.e., unity of spirit—except 
when tempted into a controversy. Then they seemed 
as wide apart as the poles. After a time both tried to 
analyze the reason for this, and concluded that, in 
such cases, the selfish desire to justify the contro¬ 
versy caused each to weigh down his side of the argu¬ 
ment with more and more of his own self-drawn de¬ 
ductions, thus making his statements more and more 
individual and peculiar, till the thoughts exprest were 
selected for use for the very reason that they were 
widely separated. No one ever brought about spir¬ 
itual unity by controversy, but through sympathy, 
and the first condition of sympathy is to discover 
unity beneath individual difference. 

Enough was said on page 129 to indicate in what 
sense one may hold that there are truths common to 
all religions. These truths, when one’s main object 
is to bring about religious unity, need to be acknowl¬ 
edged. In some countries they are already acknowl¬ 
edged. This may be said to be the case to an unusual 


304 THE PSYCHOL 0 G Y OF INSPIRA TION 


degree in Japan—that country from which, to-day, all 
of the rest of the world seem to be deriving so many 
useful lessons. These lessons are derived not merely 
because of Japan’s recent military successes, but be¬ 
cause of the characteristics of spirit and mind which 
rendered these successes possible. More than any 
other nation of which history gives an account, Japan 
—to judge at least from its course during the last fifty 
years—seems to be governed by principles of ration¬ 
ality. Within that time many in the higher classes, 
who formerly were the only ones allowed to bear arms, 
influenced by a desire to secure the good of the coun¬ 
try, have, of their own initiative, resigned their posi¬ 
tions of influence, and most of their exclusive rights 
and privileges, thus virtually abolishing caste. Besides 
this, the whole nation has voluntarily laid aside the 
governmental, educational, and, to some extent, the 
social traditions of centuries in order to adopt what 
the experiences of other nations have proved to be 
best for a people. If the Japanese rationality be the 
result of a Confucian or a Buddhist religion, for the 
sake of humanity let us all become Confucianists or 
Buddhists! But this is not necessary. What we need, 
in order to equal them in mental breadth, is not the 
same beliefs that they have, but the same attitude of 
mind toward all beliefs. In that country, Confucianists, 
Buddhists, and Christians can meet together and ex¬ 
change views, and, when they part, can feel that they 
have been communing with a spirit that has united 


JAPANESE RATIONALITY 


305 


them. What spirit? Are we not justified in believing 
it to be the spirit of that Creative Life which prompts 
each, and which therefore, if accepted as a guide, would 
allow each to give truthful expression to that which is 
revealed within his own nature. If all men be the off¬ 
spring of the same divine source, and if justice and 
impartiality characterize this source, there must be 
some truth lodged with each individual, and some mode 
of life manifested by him that is worthy of the notice 
and regard of all others. If this be true in any sphere, 
it must be true also in that of religion. 


CHAPTER XIV 


CERTAIN OTHER PROBLEMS MADE SOLVABLE BY THE 
THEORY PRESENTED IN THIS BOOK 

Reconciliation Between the Claims of Inspiration and Apparent Inac¬ 
curacy and Contradiction in the Text Giving It Expression — 
Between the Claims of Absolute, Eternal, and Infinite Truth 
and the Apparent Impossibility of Stating or Determining This; 
Pragmatism — In What Sense, Value, or Worth, Emphasized in 
Pragmatism, Is a Test of Truth—Difference Between Knowledge 
Which Is Applied to a Part and Faith Which Is Applied to a 
"Whole—Illustration—Difference Between This View and That of 
Pragmatism—Reconciliation Between the Full Acceptance of Re¬ 
vealed Truth and the Full Exercise of Reason—Between Liberal¬ 
ity of Thought and Honest Acceptance of the Christian System, 
Applied to Those Not Members of the Church — To Scientists — 
Applied to Members of the Church—Reconciliation Between Com¬ 
plete Adherence to One’s Own Religious Views and Complete 
Toleration of the Views of Others—Between Others’ Acceptance of 
the Truth in One’s Own System and Conservation of the Truth in 
Theirs—Between Rationality or Intelligence and Spirituality or 
Faith—The Material and the Spiritual—Spirituality—If Inspired 
Truth Be Suggestive, Spirituality and Faith Can Follow It with 
No Lessening of the Exercise of Intelligence and Reason — Con. 
elusion. 

It seems fitting in this closing chapter to indicate— 
partly by way of recapitulation and partly by way of 
supplement—some of the problems which suggested 
the preparation of this volume, and which the author 
hopes that it may prove instrumental in solving. The 
first of these problems is, of course, the initial one in¬ 
dicated in the Introduction, namely, how to reconcile 
the claims of an inspired religious writing with the 

306 



INSPIRATION AND INACCURACY 307 

existence of apparent inaccuracy and even contradic¬ 
tion in certain details of its statements. What better 
answer to this question could be found than the one 
given in this volume? It has been shown that, when 
a man is inspired, the very conditions necessitate that 
whatever is revealed should affect, first, the inner or 
subconscious realm of his mind; that whatever may be 
received in this inner or subconscious region influences 
both it and the outer, or conscious realm, by way of 
suggestion; and that whatever influences by way of 
suggestion must, from its very nature, leave the outer 
or conscious realm free to express itself according to 
methods dominated by its own inherited or acquired 
intelligence. It follows logically from all this that we 
have no reason to expect to find evidences of inspira¬ 
tion in the specific details of the expression, except so 
far as, indirectly, they may indicate the general trend 
of that which is exprest. Specific details can never be 
supposed to be a necessary part of that which is merely 
suggested. On the contrary, they are often originated 
solely by the particular human mind which happens to be 
the agent of the communication. They are not logically 
attributable to the spirit that inspired it. It seems 
important to add now that to make these statements 
is really to do no more than to formulate a principle in 
accordance with which the very persons who object to 
it are constantly acting. Compare the statement in 
1 Cor. 15; 22, “For as in Adam all die even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive/' with the following from Matt. 


308 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


25; 46: “And these shall go away into everlasting 

punishment.’’ Compare also Rom. 10; 13, “Whoso¬ 
ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved/’ 
with Matt. 7; 21, “Not every one that saith unto me 
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” 
It is impossible that any mind should accept, in a 
literal sense, such apparently contradictory statements. 
In each case one or both of the two must be accepted 
as a partial statement of a general truth; and it is the 
general truth alone that is believed to be inspired. 
Why should not all theologians frankly admit this? 
If they did so, they would have a theory which would 
fully explain all the facts. Moreover, because the con¬ 
ditions of the workings of subconscious mentality have 
been, as in hypnotism, scientifically determined, the 
explanation would be scientific, and, better than all, 
it would be of such a nature as to render it possible for 
a rational thinker to believe both that the source of the 
inspired suggestion may itself be absolutely infallible, 
and also that the expression of it, owing to the many 
limitations of the human medium through which it 
must be received, may be ambiguous and apparently 
inaccurate and contradictory. The exact fact seems to 
be that the spiritual, which is infinite in its nature^ 
necessarily becomes finite when limited, or—what is 
the same thing—made definite by being exprest— 
and, too often, supprest—in terms applicable to only 
material conditions (see page 142). Therefore spir¬ 
itual truth can be apprehended in the degree alone in 


PR A GMA TISM 


309 


which it is recognized to be—not dictatorial in form, 
but—suggestive. 

What has just been said will indicate the solution 
by our theory of another problem which is, perhaps, 
the most important now agitating theological circles. 
It is this—how to reconcile the claims upon us of 
what one must suppose to be fundamental truth with 
the apparent impossibility of stating, or even of de¬ 
termining, this so as to satisfy, for any length of time, 
the demands of reason and experience. The endeavor 
to solve this problem has, of late, given rise to what is 
termed pragmatism . This term is widely applied to 
many methods, only a few of which can be adequately 
considered now. For instance, it has been used as 
synonymous with that “ practicality ’ 7 upon which 
very many philosophers of the past have insisted— i.e., 
with the application of common sense to philosophical 
discussion, and the acceptance of a theory that, in 
view of all possible conditions, will “work.” When 
the term is used with this meaning, its applications 
are so broad that few can oppose the conceptions in¬ 
volved in it without seeming to reject what they them¬ 
selves accept. But there is a narrower meaning of 
the term. As thus employed, especially when, as thus 
employed, it is applied to theological questions, it seems 
to be based upon a kind of agnosticism exercised less 
with reference to the existence .or attributes of the 
Almighty, than to truth so far as, like the Almighty, 
this may be supposed to be absolute, eternal, and 


310 TEE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


infinite. According to Professor J. M. Sterrett, in his 
“Freedom of Authority/’ page 311, pragmatism 
“seems to be an extension of the worth-judgments of 
the Ritschlians to the field of all knowledge.” De¬ 
veloped philosophically by Professors Howson, James, 
and Schiller, respectively, in their volumes entitled 
“The Limits of Evolution, and Other Essays,” “The 
Will to Believe, and Other Essays,” and “Humanism, 
Philosophical Essays”; and, theologically, by Messrs. 
Sebatier, Harnack, and Loisy, respectively, in their 
volumes entitled “Outlines of a Philosophy of Re¬ 
ligion,” “What is Christianity,” and “L’Evangile et 
L’Eglise,” pragmatism assumes that men do, and, 
therefore, must, determine the truth in any principle 
by noticing its practical effects in human life. We 
are to accept the dogmas and discipline of the Church, 
for instance, because they have been proved to be 
beneficial to mankind. We are to accept them, ten¬ 
tatively, at least, for this reason alone, irrespective of 
any question with reference to the absolute, infinite, or 
eternal nature of the truth which they represent, 
which truth we can not, or, at least, we do not know. 
With reference to it, we must remain agnostics. There 
is, of course, much justification in applying to any ob¬ 
ject of observation in this world the principle, “ye 
shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7; 16). But, 
as applied where one is in search for truth, can this 
be considered in any other light than as a “working 
principle” to be used merely like an hypothesis in 


PR A GMA TISM 


311 


order to aid in the discovery of something more cer¬ 
tain? Used in this way, as an hypothesis, there can 
be no objection to accepting such a theory and adopt¬ 
ing such a method as seems to secure the best prac¬ 
tical results. To do this is merely to act rationally. 
But for the pragmatist to go further; for him to sug¬ 
gest, if not suppose, that the hypothesis, because it 
works well, is, in any sense, for this reason alone, all ' 
that one can or need know of absolute truth is to 
make the same mistake intellectually as is made mor¬ 
ally by those who suggest that because they are sin¬ 
cere, because they are obeying the dictates of con¬ 
science, they are absolutely right. As most of us 
know, they are usually not. On the contrary, they 
are often manifesting the same attitude of mind 
which the bigots and persecutors of all the ages have 
proved to be absolutely wrong. Why? What, in such 
cases, is the mistake? Should these bigots and per¬ 
secutors have been insincere? Should they have vio¬ 
lated their own consciences? Certainly not. The first 
element of morality consists in having faith in the dic¬ 
tates of one’s own conscience. But, in connection 
with having this faith, they should also have recog¬ 
nized that their consciences belong not to others, or to 
the Almighty, but to themselves alone; and, by con¬ 
sequence, merely impel them to live true to what ap¬ 
pears to be best to their own intelligence and sym¬ 
pathy. This recognition would have led them not to 
be untrue to self, but, in addition to being true, to 


312 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRAT10H 


strive to increase their knowledge and love till, finally, 
if possible, all their thoughts and emotions should be¬ 
come true also to everything wisest and best by which 
self is surrounded and can be influenced. 

So with the theory that the pragmatist has found to 
be of “value.” If it have been proved to be this, a 
man, as a rational being, should value it. But how? 
As something practically useful, but not necessarily, 
as a matter of theory, truthful. To try to accept it in 
the latter way involves making three mistakes. The 
first consists in confounding the beneficial with the 
best. Fifty years ago, almost everybody held the 
opinion that tuberculosis was not a contagious, but an 
inherited disease. The opinion was beneficial. It 
prevented people from running away from their 
friends and relatives who needed nursing. But the 
opinion was not true. Tho not contagious through 
ordinary breath or touch, the disease is contagious 
through the dried expectorations which may fill the 

air that one breathes, and thus come to touch his 

_ / 

lungs. The second mistake of those considering the 
useful to be the truthful lies in confounding the rela¬ 
tive with the absolute—that which seems true to the 
results of one’s own experience with that which is true 
to universal experience. Of course, the two are not 
identical. There must be some broader test of truth 
than that which is determined by the knowledge or 
judgment of a single individual. The third mistake, 
closely connected with both the others, lies in con- 


PR A GMA TISM 


313 


founding the methods of faith with the methods of 
knowledge. All the essays in the “Will to Believe,” 
by Professor James, would have been more effective 
logically, as well as religiously, if he had recognized 
this distinction; if, instead of intimating that partial 
information, because useful, may be true, he had 
frankly admitted that it may or may not be true, but, 
because useful, should be utilized, on the ground that 
a man needing knowledge should have faith to act ac¬ 
cording to the amount of knowledge, tho limited, that 
has been given him; and that the man needing light 
should have faith to follow after as much light, even 
tho limited, as he has the good fortune to see. The 
fact seems to be that we mortals are always living, as 
it were, in a twilight where that which can bring full 
day is under the horizon. Nevertheless, we can see a 
few things near at hand; and toward them we can 
walk according to knowledge. But, besides these, 
there are other things that loom dimly in the dis¬ 
tance; and with them comes often the promise, far 
away, of a great light. This does not make our pres¬ 
ent pathway clear, but it suggests the direction that 
we should take in order to reach a clear pathway. If 
we follow in this direction, we are rewarded in two 
ways: first, by getting nearer to the light; and, second, 
by learning from experience how to get along safely 
with such little light as we have. Neither of these re¬ 
sults, when applied to a man’s search for truth, corre¬ 
sponds exactly to that which is logically inferable 


314 THE PSYCIIOL OGY OF INSPIRA TI ON 

from what is said by the adherents of pragmatism. 
The man who is constantly hoping to attain truth or 
who is constantly learning to do without it, is by no 
means in the same attitude of mind as the man who 
surmises that he has truth, or that no one can get 
along unless he has it. Unlike the latter, the former 
accepts suggestions merely as such; and then, after the 
manner of hypnotism (see page 269), lets his subcon¬ 
scious intellection add its own logical conclusions. 

The failure to recognize that the faith (see page 274) 
awakened and determined by such conclusions is nor¬ 
mal and necessary in mental action is perhaps the 
chief defect in Kant’s philosophy. Had Professor 
James recognized this, he might have made the lesson 
that he desired to impress seem less original, but, at the 
same time, he would have made it seem more accept¬ 
able. This is so because it could then have been proved 
to conform to the precepts and the theories of almost 
all the foremost philosophers of all the ages. What 
has always been their fundamental method? When 
brought face to face with the phenomena of matter or 
of mind, what have they done? They have analyzed 
the different effects in each; they have traced them 
backward, step by step, to their primary elements, 
and when these have been found, and often not till 
then, they have compared the first appearances with 
others in which the effects of the same elements are 
visible. And why have they done this? Is there any 
better answer than that of Sir William Hamilton in 


PRAGMATISM AND FAITH 


315 


one of his “Lectures on Metaphysics”? “The mind,” 
he says, “can not conceive that anything that begins 
to be is anything more than a new modification of pre¬ 
existent elements; it is unable to view any individual 
thing as other than a link in the mighty chain of be¬ 
ing; and every isolated object is viewed by it only as 
a fragment which to be known must be known in con¬ 
nection with the whole of which it constitutes a part.” 
In other words, according to this writer, the answer to 
our question is that these philosophers proceed as they 
do because they have a conception of a whole, of an 
ideal whole, as we might say, tho in reality only a few 
parts are perceptible. But what is the nature of this 
ideal, and whence is it obtained? Its nature is the 
same as that of an ideal in religion or in art; and it is 
obtained just as is an ideal in these— i.e., through 
faith and imagination. To show this, let us take an 
elementary conception, and trace it to a condition in 
which it passes into what we term a general law or, as 
explained in Chapter I, a general truth of science. 

If one have been so circumstanced that he has never 
known of more than one death, he may say, “A man 
appeared for a little while and then vanished.” This 
is not an expression of faith or of imagination; it is the 
statement of a fact, and, so far as it goes, of a result 
of investigation. But after the observation of many 
deaths he may make the statement general. He may 
say, “A man appeareth for a little while and then 
vanisheth.” Here is a result of investigation which 


316 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 

has had added to it a result of faith. The general state¬ 
ment is made because the lives of many persons have 
been observed, and have all manifested the tendency 
indicated. Again, joining to his observations of men 
an observation of a single material appearance, one 
may say: “Man is a vapor; he appeareth for a little 
while and then vanisheth.” Here we have a result of 
faith and—because we have two factors of a compari¬ 
son both indicated, namely, man and vapor—a result 
also of imagination. Once more, observing a similar 
tendency not alone in man and in vapor, but in many 
other things, one may make his statement universal. 
He may say: “All life is a vapor”; “The things that 
are seen are temporal”; “This life’s a dream, an 
empty show.” But notice that just as soon as he 
makes his statement universal, even tho his surmisal 
be based upon such wide observations of life and its 
methods that his w T ords have almost the accuracv of 
scientific conclusions, nevertheless he has gone, still 
more decidedly than in the cases previously men¬ 
tioned, outside the realm of investigation or knowl¬ 
edge. It is impossible that one should investigate all 
the objects, events, or experiences to which a so- 
called universal law can apply. He can associate it 
with all of them so far only as he exercises faith, and, 
by imagination, conceives that what is true of the part 
is true of the whole; or, to express this differently, 
conceives of the part as imaging the whole. 

This conception of the result is very different, and 


PRAGMATISM AND PROGRESS 


317 


leads to a very different effect upon thought and action, 
from that which seems to be induced by pragmatism. 
Apparently, the logical influence of the latter is—as, 
indeed, its advocates themselves claim—to make a 
mind more or less satisfied with the degree of truth at¬ 
tained, and therefore with existing conditions in so- » 
ciety, state, and church. The conception advanced in 
the paragraph preceding this can do no more than in¬ 
cline the mind toward an acceptance of these as tenta¬ 
tive, perhaps, but probably trustworthy guides to¬ 
ward something, conceived to be similar, to which 
they may lead. This is an attitude of mind that is 
characterized at once by humility in view of one’s own 
limitations, by faith in view of one’s own inward im¬ 
pulses, and by an unquenchable thirst for progress in 
all that makes for enlightenment and betterment. 
Nothing but continued search for truth can satisfy a 
mind anxious to attain it, and yet always conscious 
that it has not been attained. It is needless to point 
out to what extent the conception of inspiration as 
being suggestive in its tendency harmonizes with this 
attitude of mind and develops it, at once dealing with 
the problem which pragmatism is intended to solve, 
and doing it in such a way as not to lessen but to in¬ 
crease the stimulating effect of those intimations 
which, for the season, are allowed to hold the place of 
truth. The only method through which the mind can 
accept a suggestion is through thinking about that 
which is suggested. The more this is thought about, 


318 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATION 


even if never discovered, the more elevating and en¬ 
larging, if it be absolute, infinite, and eternal, will be 
its influence. If this be so—and who can denv it?— 
have we not realized exactly the conditions fitted to 
give that discipline and development which all the 
wisest and best have believed to be the design of every 
experience in this earthly life? 

This thought leads us to recognize that the theory 
here presented can enable us to solve another problem 
—one as old as the oldest religion, and yet freshly 
presented for the solution of every individual of the 
present the moment that he arrives at an age where 
he begins to think for himself. This problem is, how 
to reconcile the full acceptance of revealed truth with 
the full exercise of one’s own reason as directed to its 
conclusions by the results of conscience, insight, ex¬ 
perience, and logical processes. There is no satisfactory 
answer to this question for any one who, in all cases, 
accepts what is supposed to be the expression of re¬ 
vealed truth as true in a literal, explicit, dogmatic, 
dictatorial, infallible sense. Nothing can be accepted 
in this sense except by one who, so far as concerns the 
interpretation of the particular expression involved, 
has waived the exercise of his own reason. Neverthe¬ 
less, many have been persuaded that they should do 
this. The result that follows, when they do not think 
at all for themselves, is superstition; when they think 
in part for themselves, but from dictated premises, 
bigotry; and when they think wholly for themselves. 


REVELATION AND REASONING 319 

hypocrisy. Through all three conditions, moreover, 
which are all more or less blended, the mind is being 
forced to do that which it can not do if acting naturally; 
in other words, if acting in accordance with the laws 
of its Creator, which is the same thing as to say if acting 
religiously. The mind is not acting naturally, because 
minds, as minds, can receive nothing except as they 
think it; and they can not think anything to be which 
to their own thought or reason appears not to be. 
This is a fact practically acknowledged by every 
Church in which there is preaching, the aim of which 
is alwaj^s to prove that the dogmas and practises en¬ 
joined by the Church are in conformity with those en¬ 
joined by reason. Why has it been so seldom recog¬ 
nized that an effect of exactly the same kind should 
be the aim of all the ordinances of the Church? How 
could this be recognized? By accepting, as applied to 
the original revelation and to all ecclesiastical develop¬ 
ments of it, this theory with reference to the suggestive 
character of truth. The only way in which a mind 
can be influenced by that which is clearly felt to be 
suggestive is through the thought, and the endeavor 
to carry into logical processes the thought, which the 
suggestion occasions. According to the theory of this 
book, therefore, the very acceptance of revelation as 
a guide to life involves the use of reason. Nothing 
that is suggested can appear to be essential except so 
far as it appears to be in conformity with reason. To 
some this statement will seem radical and revolutionary. 


320 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF IHSPIRA TIOH 


But it merely formulates and places upon a philosoph¬ 
ical basis the principle upon which ninety-nine out 
of every hundred intelligent Christians are constantly 
acting. Is it not desirable that they should know 
what this principle is, and, besides knowing it, be able 
to defend it? 

This thought naturally suggests another problem to 
which the theory presented in this book affords a satis¬ 
factory solution. This is, how to reconcile liberality 
and independence of view in Christianity with an honest 
acceptance of its system as a whole. This is an ex¬ 
ceedingly practical question. We all know men of 
great ability and integrity—Abraham Lincoln* and 
John Hay are prominent representatives of the type— 
who, while regular attendants upon some Christian 
Church and supporters of it, and apparently interested 
in all its efforts for the betterment of the world, never¬ 
theless are not what are called members of the Church, 
or communicants. No one can fail to perceive that 
if they were, this fact would make them much more in¬ 
fluential than they are in advancing the form of religion 
represented by the Church. Nevertheless, when they 

* Lincoln’s only published utterance concerning church-membership has 
been recently quoted thus by General Horatio C. King in an article in The 
Christian Work and Evangelist, of New York: “I have never united myself to 
any church, because I have found difficulty in giving my assent, without mental 
reservation, to the long, complicated statements of Christian doctrine which 
characterize their Articles of Belief and Confession of Faith. Whenever any 
church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification for membership, the 
Savior’s condensed statement of the substance of both law and gospel, ‘Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself,’ that church I will join with all my 
heart and all my soul.” 


CHUR CH MEMBERSHIP 


321 


tell us, as they do, that they stand aloof from it, be¬ 
cause of certain statements in the confessions to which 
the Church requires assent before admitting to mem¬ 
bership, which statements their minds can not accept, 
we feel that such men are intellectually justified in 
remaining aloof from it. We are presented, therefore, 
with the strange anomaly of thinking that men are 
doing right at the same time that we know that they 
are not exerting as distinctive a religious influence as 
they might exert. If a man be ever right in not doing 
anything, it must be because of something wrong in 
that which he is expected to do. In this case, what is 
he expected to do?—To say that he accepts certain 
statements as explicit, dictatorial expressions of the 
truth. Suppose that, instead of this, he were ex¬ 
pected to accept them merely as suggestive expres¬ 
sions. If so, he would be expected to do no more than 
he is already doing. It is because he believes in the 
general truth represented by the Church, tho not in all 
its special claims, that he is already an attendant upon 
its services and a contributor to its practical work. 
Might it not be wise for the Church to weigh carefully 
the conditions that conform to the requirements of 
earnest and really religious men of this character? 

The men just mentioned are supporters of the 
Church because of the practical good that they per¬ 
ceive it to be accomplishing in the world. On account 
of this, they waive their intellectual objections to some 
of its doctrines. But there are other men, equally 


322 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


upright and religious, who apparently consider it 
wrong to aid in any way an institution, however prac¬ 
tically beneficial, the doctrines of which do not con¬ 
form to their conceptions. These are mainly men of 
scientific training, who, in the search for truth, demand 
above all things accuracy, and can not accept any 
statements that appear to be in the least degree in¬ 
accurate. One of these called the author's attention, 
a few months ago, to what he termed the “ absurd and 
humiliating" discussion that had recently taken place 
in a convention of a certain religious body. “ Ap¬ 
parently," he said, “not one of its members knew or 
could state exactly what he believed." “Could you 
yourself do that?" he was asked. “No," he answered, 
“but I don't pretend that I could; they do." This 
answer explained the situation exactly—the reason 
why he and the Church were not at one, as well as the 
right method of making them so. In fact, being a 
religious man, he and the delegates to that convention 
were possibly in actual agreement. On his own part, 
he was ready to admit, in unequivocal terms, that he 
could not give an exact statement of his religious 
beliefs. These delegates, according to what they had 
said in their convention, were also ready on their part 
to admit the same. Why, therefore, did he imagine 
himself, and why did they imagine him, at total vari¬ 
ance from the belief of the Church? So far as he was 
concerned, this was because he had false conceptions, 
and so far as the Church was concerned, because it had 


THE CHRISTIAN AND THE LIBERAL 323 

conveyed to him false conceptions, of the degree of 
accuracy with which that which is termed revealed 
truth is, or can be, exprest. Had both recognized the 
suggestive character of this expression, both would 
have been in possession of a great fundamental prin¬ 
ciple that would have made it logically possible for 
the scientist to be a churchman, and for the Church 
to have welcomed the scientist. He would have recog¬ 
nized that revealed truth is related to religion exactly 
as what are termed the laws of gravitation, or of evo¬ 
lution, are related to science. They are merely sug¬ 
gested, but, because strongly suggested, they are often 
allowed to determine scientific beliefs (see pages 314- 
317). But they can not be accurately proved. He 
would have found, therefore, that there was neither a 
logical nor an analogical argument justifying him in 
wholly separating himself from a church whose prac¬ 
tical effects proved it to be of positive benefit to the 
world; and the Church, on the other hand, would have 
gained the influence of a man whose conscientious and 
scrupulous regard for the truth would have greatly 
enhanced its influence with minds of a similar char¬ 
acter; who, as things are, are frequently inclined, as 
he was, to deem the exprest attitude of representatives 
of the Church “absurd and humiliating,” if not hypo¬ 
critical. 

This theory of suggestion is needed, not only by those 
who are outside of the Church, but, still more perhaps, 
by those who are inside of it. The author once knew 


324 TILE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


an unusually talented and promising theological stu¬ 
dent. At the end of his course he found himself unable 
to preach either in the Church in which he had been 
educated, or in any other Church. He could not ac¬ 
cept the whole of any of the formulated creeds, one 
seeming to assert, and another to deny, too much. 
His theological professors argued with him; they told 
him that his mind was too critical; and, tho they did 
not say so, they evidently thought that it was too con¬ 
scientious. They told him that he need not accept 
every specific statement or word of the confession of 
the Church—only the general system unfolded in it. 
They evidently told him this because feeling vaguely, 
tho not divining clearly, some such conception of re¬ 
vealed truth as is brought out in this volume. Never¬ 
theless, as this truth had never been formulated or 
formally accepted by their church, the student whom 
they were seeking to influence could not reconcile their 
argument with honest adherence to their own protest 
principles. As he said once, “I fail to see how one 
who calls himself a liberal Christian can be anything 
but a hypocrit.” The proportion of ordinary preachers 
who are liberal Christians is much greater than of 
theological professors. To the kind of mind repre¬ 
sented by this theological student—inflexibly logical 
in its processes—all such preachers—and they include 
many of the most honest and earnest that the world 
holds—appear to be hypocrits. Could anything be 
more important for them, or for the many whom they 


ORTHODOXY AND TOLERATION 325 

might influence for good ; than to have proved, and gen¬ 
erally accepted, a theory such as is unfolded in this 
book? According to this theory, liberal Christianity 
is the only logical Christianity—the only system con¬ 
sistent with a clear understanding of the suggestive 
nature of all truth that is inspired. 

The connection will be recognized between what has 
just been said and another problem for which the 
theory of this book furnishes a solution. It concerns 
the methods in which one can reconcile complete ad¬ 
herence to his own religious opinions with complete 
toleration for those of others. These two attitudes of 
mind are found, at present, among large numbers, es¬ 
pecially in our own country. But even here it is felt 
by not a few that the condition is due solely to the 
force of circumstances. These have brought together 
so many of divergent views that it has become neither 
feasible nor possible for those of one belief to ostracize 
or persecute those of another. It does not seem to 
occur to some that, irrespective of such circumstances, 
toleration may be a matter of principle, logically re¬ 
sulting from a correct understanding of the nature of 
inspired truth itself. If this were presented in forms 
dictatorial, explicit, and infallible in expression, the in¬ 
dividual or church possessing it might be justified in 
using not only persuasion, but force upon all who 
doubted, rejected, or ignored it. But the moment that 
one comes to think that this truth, owing to its very 
nature, must be imparted by way of suggestion, his 


326 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


method of causing the world to receive it will be con¬ 
fined to an appeal to thought. A suggestion, like a 
puzzle, not only gives every one who hears it an inde¬ 
pendent right to interpret it in his own way, but is 
more likely to be solved in the right way in the degree 
in which every one who hears it has been allowed to 
contribute his share toward its solution. 

Ay, when men desire the whole truth, each one’s nature like a chart 
Shall unfold to show what only all together can impart, 

Till that time, though those about us vie to be the foes of truth, 

Let it be its own defender ; they will learn in time, forsooth, 

How much more may spring to light, where only wondering fancies 
teem, 

Than where listlessness in stupor slumbers on without a dream; 

How much more may be discerned, where love too lightly waives dis¬ 
trust, 

Than where mad intolerance gags a pleading doubt with naught 
discust. 

They will learn that wise men find that minds when trusted most, 
confess 

Where are hid the springs of thought 'which he who moves them needs 
to press, 

Learn that those who war with words must heed, ere crown’d with 
victory, 

Both the right array’d against them, and the wrong ; for charity, 

First in logic as in worship, leads the mind’s triumphant train. 

’Tis the Christ, not Aristotle, holds the scepter of the brain. 

A Life in Song: Watching , XIX: Raymond. 


Another problem closely connected with the one 
just considered is how to reconcile in the minds of 
others who differ from ourselves their acceptance of 
what they can believe in our system of truth without 
the rejection of what they must continue to believe in 
their own. In this age many of us are constantly 
brought into contact with adherents of religions 


NEW RELIGION AND OLD TRUTH 327 


both older and younger than ours are—with Hebrews, 
Buddhists, Confucianists, Mohammedans, Mormons, 
Spiritists, Christian Scientists, and so on. It is well- 
nigh impossible for one who has much knowledge of 
human nature, or confidence in it, to suppose that any 
of these systems contain nothing except what is false. 
They must all contain some truth or they could not 
appeal to the mind with the authority of truth. Why, 
then, do some of these systems tend—as can be proved 
of them, as, in fact, can be proved of some forms of 
Christianity—to error both in theory and practise— 
error, too, which, as rational humanitarians, to say no 
more, we sometimes deem it our duty to try to cor¬ 
rect? Why, but because, in connection with the truth 
that is in them there is some untruth? How can we 
best correct this latter and prevent its deleterious ef¬ 
fects? Is it by attacking the whole body of truth in 
which those whom we seek to influence believe? This 
would merely cause us to lose all influence with them. 
It would not unfrequently necessitate our including, 
among other things declared by us to be untrue, cer¬ 
tain things which their own experience has proved to 
themselves, at least, to be the contrary. If we wish 
to influence them, must we not admit the fact that 
they are in possession of some truth? At first thought 
the admitting of this may seem simple enough; but, 
on second thought, we shall find the ground on which 
we can base the admission extremely difficult to ex¬ 
plain either to ourselves or to others. It is difficult 



328 THE PSYCHOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOH 

because sometimes the very untruth which we deem it 
important to refute is, or is believed to be, an organic 
part of the system which they consider to be revealed. 
Our arguments against uncharity, zeal not according 
to knowledge, unreasonable bigotry, superstitious for¬ 
malism, or the prevention of contagious diseases by 
faith might be convincing were it not one of the 
very things supposed to be taught by being revealed. 
If it be taught thus, or is believed to be taught thus, 
what is to be done? Nothing can be done, and done 
successfully, unless we can get people to perceive that 
the essential character of revelation is the imparting 
of truth by way of suggestion. When, and only when 
they perceive this, will they begin to perceive that it 
is essential that they should use their own minds in 
receiving truth; then only will they begin to compare 
different utterances, and the bearings of each, and the 
logical connections between them; and then only may 
we expect any larger number to arrive at that to secure 
which is one of the reasons why the revelation is made 
suggestive, namely, a rational conclusion. Indeed, 
until in some way they have been brought to realize 
that it is the function of inspiration to influence mind, 
which is the same as to say to influence thinking, they 
will not exercise thought, or, as we say, common 
sense, when deciding what they should believe or do. 
The effect upon the world of not thinking, when 
manifested by large numbers of people, furnishes the 
worst possible menace to all that makes for peace, 


SPIRITUALITY AND RATIONALITY 329 


enlightenment or progress. No animal is more dumb 
than a rational man when he becomes the slave of 
any theory that seems to justify his acting irration¬ 
ally. Nor is it easy to perceive how a religious man 
can be prevented from feeling justified in acting thus 
by any other theory of revelation than the one pre¬ 
sented in this volume. 

Just here it would not be strange if some should be 
inclined to feel, notwithstanding all that has been said 
in this book of spirituality and faith, that, in some 
way, they have been unduly subordinated to certain 
supposed requirements of rationality and intelligence. 
For the benefit of such it seems well to show now that 
the theory here presented is the only one that can 
satisfactorily reconcile all these. This can be done by 
causing the reader to recognize that what is really an¬ 
tagonistic to spirituality, as a condition of mind, is 
not rationality, but materialismand that what is 
really antagonistic to faith, as a motive, is not in¬ 
telligence, but a presumption of knowledge, which is 
the very thing in which many a man, for the very 
reason that he is intelligent, does not indulge. 

In order to accomplish our purpose, let us begin by 
getting as clear an idea as possible of what spirituality 
is, and of what is the connection between it and faith. 
A trustworthy conception of the former can perhaps be 
best obtained from what is probably the earliest at¬ 
tempt to explain it. In Rom. 8; 5, the Apostle Paul 
says: “They that are after the flesh do mind [t.e., 


330 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSPIRATI02T 

seek, serve, obey] the things of the flesh, but they that 
are after the spirit the things of the spirit.” In this 
passage men are not divided according to their external 
religious affiliations. So far as the terms seem capable 
of interpretation, either the “material” or the “spiri¬ 
tual” may be found among Catholics, Presbyterians, or 
Friends, or, for that matter, among Mohammedans, 
Buddhists, or Confucianists. According to the apostle’s 
use of the word, the one test dividing the two classes 
is that some “mind” the things of the flesh, and that 
others “mind” the things of the spirit; or, as the verse 
preceding this puts it, “walk after the flesh” or “after 
the spirit.” What is meant by such phraseology is 
clear enough. We all recognize the classes to whom 
it refers. There are certain people in the world who 
walk after the flesh— i.e., who, in the courses which they 
pursue, aim—not invariably, perhaps, but as a rule— 
to secure the pleasure, comfort, and welfare of their 
physical bodies. They indulge its appetites and lusts, 
if not by way of gluttony, then of greed, constantly, 
in disregard of the claims of others, adding to their 
possessions in the physical world about them, and thus 
increasing their influence on what may be termed the 
physical plane. There are others who do the contrary. 
In the courses which they pursue in life, they aim— 
not invariably, perhaps, but as a rule—to secure the 
pleasure, comfort, and welfare of that within them 
which does not pertain to the body. They are con¬ 
scious of thoughts and emotions tending to certain 


SPIRITUALITY 


331 


ideals and aspirations which give a man a distaste for 
the results of appetite and lust; i.e., give him a conscious¬ 
ness that these thoughts and emotions can not enjoy 
free, unimpeded exercise in case the appetites and lusts 
be indulged. Therefore such persons practise, as ap¬ 
plied to the latter, what is termed self-denial. Be¬ 
sides this, the same thoughts and emotions lead to a 
sense of sympathy and responsibility for others, which 
give a man a distaste for the results of greed aimed at 
increasing one’s own possessions at the expense of his 
neighbors, or aimed, at least, at preventing the free, 
unimpeded exercise of that to which his sense of sym¬ 
pathy or responsibility prompts. Therefore such a per¬ 
son practises what is termed self-sacrifice. The sickly 
mother gives up her own health to secure that of her 
child; the volunteer patriot gives up his own life for 
that of the state; the foreign missionary gives up his 
own home to secure one for the savage. This giving 
up shows spirituality. Now notice that it shows this 
because it assigns preeminent importance not to what 
is without the mind, but to what is within it. The 
physical body and its physical surroundings contain 
things—all things—that can be seen or heard or han¬ 
dled; and these are clearly outside the mind— i.e., 
outside the sphere in which thought and emotion are 
experienced. When the materialist is aiming for these 
things which he can see, hear, or handle, and can ob¬ 
tain or increase as a result of clearly comprehended 
calculation, he may be said to know them and, when 


332 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATIOX 


he deals with them, to be walking according to knowl 
edge. 

On the other hand, the ideals and aspirations, the 

promptings of sympathy and responsibility for others, 

which the spiritual man obeys are just as clearly inside 

the mind— i.e., inside the sphere in which thought and 

emotion are experienced. Nor are all the processes of 

thought and emotion influencing the spiritual man 

inside the region of his own consciousness. Many of 

them are in the subconscious region. He does not 

always see—often he does not care to find out—the 

steps of logic, if indeed there be any, behind that course 

to which his conscience or conviction directs him. He 

does not always see—often he does not care to find 

out—the material end that his action will attain, or 

if any end worth having in this world be that which it 

will attain for himself. If he be a patriot, for instance, 

he goes where he is by no means assured that he will 

not meet his death. He says that he does so in order 

to serve his countrv. But what will be the use of a 

%/ 

country to himself in case he has died for it? Why 
does he not go somewhere else and find some other 
country for which it will not be necessary for him to 
risk his life; existence in which country, therefore, will 
be sure to be of use to him? He certainly would do so 
if he were a man who walked according to merely 
knowledge. Why does he not run away? Because^ 
so far as concerns his actions in this regard, he is a 
spiritual and not a material man. He is walking not 


SPIRITUALITY AND FAITII 


333 


according to knowledge— i.e. } not in a sphere in which 
causes can be ascertained and results calculated;—he 
is walking according to faith— i.e. } in a sphere in which 
one can learn no more of causes and results than can 
be obtained from the promptings of ideals, aspirations, 
and sympathies which are impelling him from within, 
tho, of course, always in view of such realities, ne¬ 
cessities, and possibilities as seem to be calling upon 
him from without. 

It is not necessary to argue that all this is the same 
as to say that the promptings, obedience to which in¬ 
volves both spirituality and faith, are and must be— 
as has been shown to be true with reference to all in¬ 
fluence exerted first upon the inner mind—suggestive. 
If they were explicit and dictatorial in character, men 
would be fully aware of what they were expected to do. 
They would be controlled by the letter of the law, not 
by its spirit, or that which is spiritual in the law. They 
would obey it without any exercise of faith, on account 
of knowledge. The self-sacrificing parent, soldier, or 
missionary is not influenced by considerations which 
he can knowingly calculate. He is influenced merely 
by his general determination to serve with the best 
motives and, as prompted by these, to the best of his 
ability, the family, the state, or the church which 
needs his services. Notice, however, that this general 
determination does not lessen the rationality or in¬ 
telligence with which the determination is formed, or 
put into execution. Nor, indeed, does it lessen the 


334 THE PSYCIIOL0GY OF INSPIRATION 


exercise of either of these before he comes to his deter¬ 
mination. No man can come to a wholly rational or 
intelligent conclusion if he fail to consider candidly 
and balance honestly against other considerations any 
consideration that should have weight in determining 
his conclusions. Who can say that suggestions from 
the subconscious mind should not be included among 
these considerations? Are not men rational and in¬ 
telligent when, in fulfilment of the promptings of 
conscience, aspiration, or sympathy, they become self- 
sacrificing parents, soldiers, and missionaries? Ac¬ 
cordingly, we perceive that it is not the material, but 
the spiritual man, not the man who walks wholly ac¬ 
cording to knowledge because of information that can 
be dictated, but the man who walks according to faith 
also because of thought or feeling that is suggested, 
who exhibits such rationality and intelligence as is in¬ 
fluenced to the greatest degree, and from the greatest 
number of sources. 

There are other religious problems for which the 
theory presented in this book seems to furnish a satis¬ 
factory solution. But they need not be considered 
here. All can be included, in a general way, among 
those that have been mentioned. 

It only remains for the author now to write a single 
concluding sentence. Perhaps he may be excused for 
putting it in this form—that if his readers can not 
accept the premises, the methods, or the conclusions 
of his volume, nevertheless a sufficient excuse for the 


CONCLUSION 


335 


writing of it will be furnished to himself, if only it 
have so emphasized the general subject as to convince 
thoughtful men of its supreme importance; and if only, 
influenced by an endeavor to correct whatever in the 
argument seems misleading, some wiser man than he 
shall let the world know why the theory that has here 
been presented is wrong, and why some other theory 
is right. 







INDEX 


Absolute right, 311; truth, 17, 25, 
33-35, 43, 45, 132, 151, 311. 

Accuracy of Bible and Sacred Wri¬ 
tings, 4-6, 307, 308, 322. 

A life in song, 326. 

Ambiguity in Bible and Sacred Wri¬ 
tings, 4-7, 179, 180. 

Ancestral worship, 294, 295, 298. 

Animal mental action, 81-85. 

Apparitions, 67, 68, 73, 77, 86-89; see 
Spirits. 

Appearances; see Forms. 

Appetites, higher and lower, 249, 250. 

Aquinas, x., 132. 

Arguments of Bible, 31-33. 

Arnold, Matthew, 80. 

Associations, mental and ethical influ¬ 
ence of, 255-258. 

Augustine, x. 

Authority, used to control religious or 
church belief or practise, 179-186, 
214-229, 296, 297. 

Bacon, F., 273. 

Bible, arguments in, 31-33; develop¬ 
ment of truth in revelation in, 153; 
history in, 28, 29; injunctions in, 33- 
36; literalism in, 41-43; prophesy in, 
29-31; rational interpretation of, 
162-168; truth as represented in, 
28-40; see Scriptures and Sacred 
Writings. 

Biblical communications analogous to 
those of nature, 170-172; state¬ 
ments suggestive not dictatorial, 
169-177; susceptible of misinterpre¬ 
tation, 105, 106; views of spiritism, 
100, 297, 298. 

Blind Tom, 64. 

Buddha, 203, 295, 297, 299. 

Buddhists, 302, 304. 

Calvin, x., 132. 

Candor in theological discussions, xi. 

Cathedral services, 233. 

Catholic Church, 218, 220-222. 

Certainty claimed when suggestion is 
experienced. 206, 207. 

Character, personal, chief source of re¬ 
ligious influence, 259-262, 272; see 
Example and Personality. 

Changes in truth and opinion, 12,41-45. 

Children and truth, 49. 

Christ, the, as influencing faith and 
character, 240, 242, 258-264, 269- 
274, 282-284, 289, 301; humanity of, 


and doctrine of Trinity, 194, 195; 
influence of, in salvation. 192-205; 
miraculous birth of, 195-198. 

Christian life, 236-246. 

Christianity, benefited by other re¬ 
ligions, 299-300; historic, as an ar¬ 
gument for church unity, 224-226; 
its peculiarity, 301, 302. 

Church, a means not an end, 211, 212; 
and scientists, 321-323; attendance 
on, 181, 182; effect on character of 
its services, 258-264; external unity 
of, 218, 219, 224-227, 286; history 
of, 215, 216, 224-226; Us discipline, 
dogmas, and worship, 210-246; its 
exercise of authority, 179, 180, 214- 
229, 296, 297; its influence on con¬ 
duct, 259-264; on faith, 277-286; 
on opinion, 213-229; on thought, 
216-218, 285, 286; preaching, 272; 
uniformity detrimental to senti¬ 
ment and character, 218-229; primi¬ 
tive form of, 226, 227; Scriptural 
conception of, 212. 

Church-membership, 320-325; require¬ 
ments for, 246, 320, 321. 

Churchill, ,1. W., 64. 

Coburn, 63. 

Coleridge, 34, 58. 

Compilation in Bible may be inspired, 
158-161. 

Conduct, influence on, of the church and 
religion, 218-222, 236-246, 256-264. 

Confessions; see creeds. 

Conformity, religious, 218-229. 

Confucius, 295, 299. 

Confucianists, 302, 304. 

Conscience, 248, 249, 250-256, 261, 
262, 286-268, 276, 311, 312. 

Conscious and subconscious spheres of 
mind, 55-106; influence of conscious 
over subconscious intellection, 92- 
100, 147-156; relation to conscience, 
248-254; to faith, 266-268, 275, 284, 
285, 314; see Spiritual. 

Consciousness; see Conscience and 
Conscious. 

Contradiction in the Bible, 307-309; 
see Inaccuracy. 

Conversion, 116, 120, 271-274; through 
hypnotism, 117, 118. 

Creation, explained by hypnotism, 119, 
120; by psychometry, 160. 

Creeds, 26, 28; as repeated in church, 
236; origin of, 184-186; use of in 
churches, 179-181. 


338 


INDEX 


Crime, details of, should not be pub¬ 
lished, 256, 257. 

Cumont, F., 130. 

Dark Ages, 185, 241. 

Desires higher and lower as related to 
conscience, 249-253. 

Development of character, 40; of truth 
in the Bible revelation, 153. 

Discipline in the Church, 236-246. 

Distance, occult perception of, 65-68. 

Dogmas, 26, 28. 

Dogmatism, as connected with au¬ 
thority, 213-229; with considering 
Biblical truth suggestive, 178-209; 
with conserving truth, 40-42; with 
external organization, 211, 212; 

with faith, 277-286; with hymns 
and rituals, 232-236. 

Doubt, a means of grace, 40. 

Education, effect of, on mental con¬ 
scious action, 77, 78, 93, 94; in 
countries with unreformed churches, 
195; of the young, 255-258. 

Environment, effects of on methods of 
accepting and expressing truth, 145- 
156; influence of on the young, 255- 
258. 

Evil spirits, worship of, 293, 204. 

Expression of suggested or inspired 
truth, 110-115, 135-156. 

Example, importance of, 258-264. 

Faith, 27, 42, 45, 116, 207, 265-286; 
accepts truth as suggestive, 207, 
266-271, 283-286, 312-318; and 

hypnotism, 116; and knowledge, 155, 
156; in dictates of conscience, 311, 
312; influenced by dogmas, 265, 266; 
normal and necessary to mental ac¬ 
tion, 313-317; reconciled to ration¬ 
ality, 329-334; versus knowledge, 
122-124, 155, 156, 331-334. 

Fever, as influencing thought, 58. 

Fidelity, a characteristic of faith, 275. 

Finite truth, 34, 36, 45. 

Forms, truth in, i 1-14, 18, 20, 24, 26,41. 

Formulas, 16, 35, 38, 183; see Forms. 

Freedom of thought, 216-218; char¬ 
acteristic of a religion founded on 
faith, 116, 119, 122-124, 284-286; 
intended to be produced by Bible, 
285, 286. 

French attitude of mind toward re¬ 
ligion, xi., 220, 221. 

Genius and subconscious intellection, 
149. 

Habits, 254-256. 

Hamilton, Sir W., 314. 

Hebrews, 302. 

Herder, 30. 

Hero Worship, 294, 295. 

Historic Christianity, argument for 
one church from, 224-226. 

History, use of in Bible, 28, 29. 


Hudson, T. J., 102, 116. 

Humanity of the Christ, 194, 195; 
conception of lessened by the doc¬ 
trine of the Trinity, 194, 195. 

Humanitarian effects of the Church, 
195, 244-246. 

Hymns, 208, 209, 232-235; see Wor¬ 
ship. 

Hypnotism, 59, 60, 109-120, 239, 261, 
266-269, 271; allied to faith, 112— 
114; explaining conversion. 116-118, 
120; creation, 119, 120; life after 
death, 121; spiritual life of Christian, 
118, 119; unity of Christ and be¬ 
lievers, 118; what are its methods, 
112-114; what truth is obtained 
through it, 146-151; why it explains 
inspiration and revelation, 109-114. 

Ideals, 156; in Christianity, 283-286; 
in philosophy and science, 315. 

Imitation of leaders in religion and 
Christianity, 246, 263, 264, 282-284. 

Immaculate conception, 195-198. 

Immortality; see Life after Death. 

Inaccuracy of Bible and Sacred Wri¬ 
tings, 4-6, 307-309. 

Inference, logical, as interpreting the 
Bible, 166-168. 

Injunctions of the Bible, how stated, 
33, 34. 

Insight, intuitive, as interpreting the 
Bible, 165, 166. 

Inspiration, 4, 6; doctrine of Biblical, 
186-190, 285; meaning of term, 52- 
55; results modified by conscious in¬ 
tellection, 95, 96; results allied to 
those of hypnotism, 98, 109-132, 
140-156; see Sacred Writings. 

Instinct, 78, 79. 

Instinctive mental action, 79-81. 

Interpretation of the Bible, historic, 
scientific, literary, 139-142; rational, 
161-168. 

James, W., 313, 314. 

Japan, rationality in, 304, 305. 

Jessen, 60. 

Joy of the Christian life, 238-246. 

Kepler, 62. 

King, H. O., 320. 

Knowledge of God, 45-50; versus 
faith, 124, 155, 156, 331-334. 

Language; see Words. 

Last Supper, 194, 280, 281. 

Lessing, 39. 

Letterand spirit, 122-124,154-156,333. 

Liberalism in early Christian church, 
287-289; in the modern church, 322- 
325; reconciled with loyalty to 
church, 320-325. 

Life after death, belief in, 73-77, 290- 
293; not attributable to imagina¬ 
tion, 290-292; similar views of, 291, 
292; suggestions concerning, from 
hypnotism, 121. 


INDEX 


339 


Lincoln, religious views of, 320; premo¬ 
nition of, 70. 

Literalism, 41-43, 118, 137, 141-146, 
177, 285, 286, 333. 

Literary interpretation of Scripture, 
140-146. 

Logic, subconscious, 60-64, 113, 120, 
147, 248-254, 266-268, 278-284, 314, 
315. 

Logical inference in interpreting the 
liible, 166-168. 

Love, as related to faith, 118; to truth, 
46-48. 

Ludlow, J. M., 66. 

Luther, x. 

Malebranche, 39. 

Marryat, F., 58. 

Marshall, H. R., 78. 

Mason, R. O., 107. 

Materialist, 97, 330-333. 

Materializing effects on spiritual truth 
of expression, 134-139, 175-177. 

Mathematical, subconscious mental 
action, 60-64. 

Mediums, 5, 6, 53, 69, 71-73, 85-91, 
94, 96-106, 268; see Spiritism. 

Memory, 57, 58, 248, 254, 275. 

Method of operation constitutes the 
truth, 13-24, 28-35. 

Michelangelo, 36. 

Mind-reading, 70. 71. 

Ministry, diminishing numbers enter¬ 
ing, viii.; not Christlike, xii., xiii. 

Miraculous birth of the Christ, 195- 
198. 

Missionary effort not discredited by 
liberal views, 300, 301. 

Mithras, sacraments of, 130. 

Modern thought, ix., x. 

Mohammed, 9i, 203, 296, 299. 

Mohammedanism, 90, 91, 99, 298, 302. 

Mormon, 99. 

Moses, W. S., 71; the prophet, 296, 299. 

Mozart, 63. 

Mhller, 75. 

Music, church, 232-235. 

Musical, subconscious proficiency, 63. 

Myths, illustration of origin of, 128- 
132. 

Nevius, J. L., 73. 

Negro, occult mental action of, 85. 

Occult sphere of the mind, 55*-95; see 
Subconscious. 

Organization, necessary in the church, 
228. 

Parables of Bible, purpose of, 32, 37. 

Parses, 302. 

Personality, its influence in Chris¬ 
tianity and faith, 112-118, 241, 242, 
258, 264, 267-269, 270, 272, 277. 
282-284; that of God, 190, 191. 

Pierce, Dr. C. N., 85. 

Practicality in determining truth, 309- 
318. 


Pragmatism, 309-318. 

Prayers, 232, 235, 236; see Worship. 
Preaching, 229, 272. 

Premonitions, 69, 70. 

Progress, 40-44, 317. 318. 

Prophecy and premonition, 69, 70; use 
of, in Bible, 29, 30. 

Protestant, 96; Reformation, x., 183, 
185; influence on education and 
character, 195, 219-223. 
Psychometry, 160. 

Punishment, eternal, 204, 205. 


Rationalism, xiv. 

Rationality, and self-defense, 260; in 
interpreting the Bible, 158-168; 
necessary in the seer, 155, 156; to 
develop this in man the object of 
life, 172-175; reconciled with faith 
and spirituality, 329-334. 

Reason reconciled with revelation. 
318-320. 


Reformation, Protestant, x., 183, 185, 
186; influence on education ana 
character, 195, 219-223. 

Religions, all similar, 129-131, 202- 
204; attitude of early Christian to¬ 
ward non-Christian, 287-289; Chris¬ 
tianity benefited by truth in other, 
299, 300; truth in all, 288-299, 327. 

Repetition, effects of on habits and 
character, 257-258. 

Responsibility for promptings of con¬ 
science, 254—258. 

Revelation, 54, 55; reconciled with 
reason, 318-320; see Inspiration. 

Revivals, 272, 273, 281. 

Rites, effects of, on faith, 277-286. 

Rituals, 182, 229-236; see Worship 
and Words. 


Sacraments, 213; of Mithras, 130. 

Sacred Writings, danger of literal in¬ 
terpretation of, 105, 106; differ from 
spiritist communications, 105; in¬ 
accuracy in, 4-6; inspiration of, 186- 
190, 285; method of interpretation 
of, 140, 161-168. 

Salvation Army, 242; as the aim of 
Christianity, 240; plan of, 198-202. 

Schism, effects of, on thought and life, 
211, 223, 224. 

Scientific, literary, and religious use of 
words, 141-145; system, 14. 

Scientists, attitude toward religion, 
xii., xiii., 321-323. 

Scriptures, danger of literal interpre¬ 
tation of, 105, 106; differ from 
spiritist communications, 105; inac¬ 
curacy in, 5; inspiration of, 186- 
190, 285; method of interpretation 
of, 140, 161-168; see Bible, Biblical, 
and Writings. 

Seance, 88, 89, 297. 

Self-preservation, instinct of com¬ 
pared to conscience, 251, 252. 

Sentence, represents a method of op¬ 
eration, 21, 22. 


340 


INDEX 


* 


Shakespeare, 141, 142. 

Signs and wonders not proving divine 
power, 99, 100. 

Sincerity not truth, 42, 43, 311. 

Space, apprehension of truth in, 10-13. 

Spencer, 14. 

Spirits, communication with, 297, 298; 
worship of good and evil, 293, 294; 
see Apparitions, Life After Death, 
and Spiritism. 

Spiritism, 53, 72, 98-106; and Chris¬ 
tianity, 105, 106, 297, 298; its testi¬ 
monies with reference to spirit- 
world similar, 129, 130; its trances, 
87-89, 91; Scriptural references to, 
100, 297, 298; see Mediums. 

Spiritual, in this book, xiv.; life, 27; 
meaning of, 52-55; subject to law 
111; truth can not be communicated 
except suggestively, 175-177. 

Spiritualism; see Spirits and Spiritism. 

Spirituality, definition of, 329-334; 
reconciled with rationality, 329-334; 
world similarly described among all 
nations, 129, 130. 

Sterrett, J. M., 310. 

Subconscious, contrasted with con¬ 
scious sphere of mind, 55-95, 147- 
156; degree of truth obtainable 
from, 146-151, 248, 249, 266, 268, 
314-318; relation to conscience, 248- 
256; to faith, 266-268, 275, 284-286, 
314; see Logic. 

Suggested truth, as related to dogmat¬ 
ism, 178-209; as related to faith, 
116, 207, 266-271, 283-286 314-318; 
form and significance in, 134-157. 

Suggestion, effects in influencing mind 
and character, 122, 123, 154: effects 
in stimulating study, 126, 127; ef¬ 
fects upon progress, 171 317-326; 
its influence in conversion, 117; in 
faith, 116; in hypnotism, 112; in in¬ 
spiring through truth, 107-133; in 
reconciling absolute with limited 
truth, 309-318; in reconciling con¬ 
tradictions and inaccuracies with in¬ 
spired writing, 307-309; reconciling 
liberalism and church loyalty, 320- 
325; reconciling new truth with old 
traditions, 326-329; reconciling or¬ 
thodoxy with toleration, 325-326; 
revelation with reason, 318-320; 
spirituality and faith with ration¬ 
ality and intelligence, 329-334. 

Suggestive, not dictatorial, character 
of Biblical statements, 169-177, 183; 
making Biblical communications 
analogous to those in nature, 170- 
172; spiritual truth normally com¬ 
municated thus, 175-177. 

Swedenborg, 86, 91. 

Tennyson, 40. 

Theologians and candor, xi.; future, 
132; should study hypnotism, 112. 

Thought, repression of its expression, 
216-218; see Freedom of Thought. 


Time, apprehension of truth of nature 
in, 11-13. 

Toleration, 325, 226; reconciled with 
orthodoxy, 325, 326. 

Tradition, as interpreting the Bible, 
162-165. 

Trance conditions, 87-89, 91. 

Trinity, 129, 192-199, 235. 

True, its meaning, 17-24. 

Truth, and life, 48-50; and love, 46- 
48; as absolute, eternal, or infinite, 
17, 25, 132; as essential and non- 
essential, 2; as represented in the 
Bible, 28-40; development of rev¬ 
elation of in Bible, 153-156; in 
methods of operation, 13-50; nature 
of, 9-49; not in outward forms or 
formulas, 10-49; not in space alone, 
11; not in time alone, 11, 12; ob¬ 
tained sometimes in hypnotism, 146- 
153; spiritual, can be communicated 
only suggestively, 175-177; use of 
in the Bible, 37-39; what it ex¬ 
presses in the Bible, 28-40. 

Tucker, Dr., 65. 

Unconscious; see Subconscious. 

Uneducated, the, particularly, subject 
to subconscious influence, 77, 78, 
85, 86. 

Uniformity of Christian thought and 
practise not desirable, 218-229, 286. 

Unity of all religions, 288-305; of the 
Church intended to be spiritual, 218, 
219, 226, 227, 286; of the spirit in 
religion, 302-305; spiritual, as illus¬ 
trated by analogies from hypnotism, 
118, 119, 193. 

Unwritten Word, analogy of its form 
and influence to Written W., 125,139. 

Value, as criterion of truth, 309-318. 

Virgin-birth of the Christ, 195-198. 

Voisin, M. A., 117. 

Von Hartmann, 60. 

Walt,ace, W. F , 150. 

Words, ambiguity of meaning of, 135- 
137; origin of, 136-139; scientific, 
literary, and religious use of, 140- 
145; symbolic and illustrative in 
character, 135-142. 

Wordsworth, 81, 139. 

Worship of ancestors, 294, 295; of 
good and evil spirits, 293-294; of 
heroes, 294, 295; in the church, 229- 
336; non-effective when dogmatic, 
231-236; or irreligious, 209. 

Waiting, automatic, 71, 72, 90, 91. 

Writings, Sacred, ambiguity of, 4-7; 
effect upon form of religion where 
they are influential, 96; inaccuracy 
of, 4-6; see Bible, Biblical, and 
Scriptures. 

Young, the, as influenced by associa¬ 
tion, environment, and reading de¬ 
tails of crime, 256, 257. 

Zoroaster, 296, 299. 



OTHER BOOKS BY PROFESSOR RAYMOND 

Fundamentals in Education, Art, and Civics: Essays and 
Addresses. 8 vo., cloth. Net, $ 1 . 40 ; by mail, $ 1 . 53 . 

“Of fascinating interest to cultured readers, to the student, the teacher, the poet, 
the artist, the musician, in a word to all lovers of sweetness and light. The author has 
a lucid and vigorous style, and is often strikingly original. What impresses one is 
the personality of a profound thinker and a consummate teacher behind every para¬ 
graph.”— Dundee Courier, Scotland. 

“The articles cover a wide field and manifest a uniformly high culture in every 
field covered. It is striking how this great educator seems to have anticipated the 
educational tendencies of our times some decades before they impressed the rest of us. 
He has been a pathfinder for many younger men, and still points the way to higher 
heights. The book is thoroughly up-to-date.”— Service, Philadelphia. 

“Clear, informing, and delightfully readable. Whether the subject is art and 
morals, technique in expression, or character in a republic, each page will be found 
interesting and the treatment scholarly, but simple, sane, and satisfactory . . . the 
story of the Chicago fire is impressingly vivid.”— Chicago Standard. 

“He is a philosopher, whose encouraging idealism is well grounded in scientific 
study, and who illuminates points of psychology and ethics as well as of art when 
they come up in the course of the discussion.”— The Scotsman, Edinburgh, Scotland. 

“A scholar of wide learning, a teacher of experience, and a writer of entertaining 
and convincing style.”— Chicago Examiner. 

“ ‘The Mayflower Pilgrims’ and ‘Individual Character in Our Republic’ call for 
unstinted praise. They are interpenetrated by a splendid patriotism.”— Rochester 
Post-Express. 

“Agreeably popularizes much that is fundamental in theories of life and thought. 
The American people owe much of their progress, their optimism, and we may say 
their happiness to the absorption of just such ideals as Professor Raymond stands 
for.”— Minneapolis Book Review Digest. 

“They deal with subjects of perennial interest, and with principles of abiding 
importance, and they are presented with the force and lucidity which his readers 
have come to look for in Dr. Raymond."— Living Age, Boston. 

Suggestions for the Spiritual Life—College Chapel Talks. 

8 vo., cloth. Net, $ 1 . 40 ; by mail, $ 1 . 53 . 

“Sermons of more than usual worth, full of thought of the right kind, fresh, strong, 

direct, manly. Not one seems to strain to get a young man’s attention by 

mere popular allusions to a student environment. They are spiritual, scriptural, 
of straight ethical import, meeting difficulties, confirming cravings, amplifying tangled 
processes of reasoning, and not forgetting the emotions.”— Hartford Theological 
Seminary Record (Congregationalist). 

“The clergyman who desires to reach young men especially, and the teacher of 
men’s Bible Classes may use this collection of addresses to great advantage. . . . 
The subjects are those of every man’s experience in character building . . . such a 
widespread handling of God’s word would have splendid results in the production 
of men.”— The Living Church (Episcopalian). 

“Great themes, adequately considered. . . . Surely the young men who listened 
to these sermons must have been stirred and helped by them as we have been stirred 
and helped as we read them.”— Northfield (Mass.) Record of Christian Work (Evan¬ 
gelical). 

“They cover a wide range. They are thoughtful, original, literary, concise, con¬ 
densed, pithy. They deal with subjects in which the young mind will be interested.” 
— Western Christian Advocate (Methodist). # , 

“Vigorous thought, vigorously expressed. One is impressed by the moderation 
and sanity of the teachings here set forth and scholarly self-restraint in statement. 
Back of them is not only a believing mind, but genuine learning and much hard think¬ 
ing.”— Lutheran Observer. 

“Though most of the addresses were prepared over forty years ago . . . no chapter 
in the book seems to be either ‘old-fogyish’ or ‘unorthodox.’ ”— The Watchman (Boston, 
Baptist). , . . . , , 

“The preacher will find excellent models for his work and stimulating thought . . . 
attractively presented and illustrated. . . . The addresses are scholarly and especially 
adapted to cultivated minds. They show evidence of intimate acquaintance with 
modern science and sympathy with modern ideas.”— Springfield (Mass.) Republican. 

“Beautiful and inspiring discourses . . . embody the ripe conviction of a mind 
of exceptional refinement, scholarship, and power ... a psychologist, a philosopher, 
and a poet.”— N. Y. Literary Digest. . 

“Never was such a book more needed by young men than just now. — Philadelphia 
Public Ledger. 


FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY, Pubs., New York and London 





TEXT BOOKS BY PROFESSOR RAYMOND 


The Essentials of Esthetics. 8 vo. Illustrated. Net, $ 2 . 50 , 

This work, which is mainly a compendium of the author’s system of Comparative 
^Esthetics, previously published in seven volumes, was prepared, by request, for a 
text-book and for readers whose time is too limited to study the minuti® of the subject. 

“It can hardly fail to make talent more rational, genius more conscious of the princi¬ 
ples of art, and the critic and connoisseur better equipped for impression, judgment 
and appraisement.”— New York Times. 

“So lucid in expression and rich in illustration that every page contains matter of 
deep interest even to the general reader”.— Boston Herald. 

“Dr. Raymond’s book will be invaluable. He shows a knowledge both extensive 
and exact of the various fine arts, and accompanies his ingenious and suggestive 
theories by copious illustrations.”— The Scotsman (Edinburgh). 

“The whole philosophy underlying this intelligent art-criticism should be given 
the widest possible publicity.”— Boston Globe. 


Ethics and Natural Law. 8 vo. Net, $ 2 . 25 . 

A reconstructive review of moral philosophy, applied to the rational art of living— 
a book that is in effect a continuation and completion of the author’s well-known 
aesthetic works, showing the relationship of the principles underlying art to the culture 
of character. 

“The book Ethics and Natural Law is an interesting statement of the author’s 
theory that the ethical life is a harmonious life in which the antagonisms between mind 
and body are reconciled by the dominance of mind. The consciousness of conflict 
between body and mind accounts for what we call conscience which tells that the 
conflict should be ended. It is ended when the desires of the body in the whole 
realm of human relationships are subordinated to the desires of the mind. The 
analogy between the aesthetic and moral harmonies is excellently developed, and one 
is reminded of the Platonic principle of the harmonious subordination of the lower 
to the higher. In the statement of the various ethical theories which the author 
reviews he is clear and satisfactory. The classification of his material is consistent 
throughout. His emphasis on the necessity of the subordination, and not the destruc¬ 
tion of the desires of the body, is of notable importance. His doctrine calls for the 
spiritual utilization of the natural powers and makes mind supreme in the individual, 
the social, and the governmental life of mankind.”— John A. McIntosh, D.D., Professor 
of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, McCormick Theological Seminary. 

“The student of ethics will considerably fortify his knowledge of the history of 
ethical thought by reading the book, especially the first twelve chapters. In these 
Mr. Raymond embodies, with copious references, his extensive knowledge of what 
has been written and thought by moral philosophers. On pp. 63-67, for instance, 
will be found in footnotes a kind of classified anthology of all the definitions given of 
conscience by modern writers. The various ethical theories holding the field do not, 
he thinks, recognize as indispensable the cooperation, in every slightest detail of 
thought and feeling, of the two necessary factors of every desire; and he claims that 
his own doctrine keeps to the purpose he avows in his opening chapter—to draw no 
inference, and to advance no theory, not warranted by known facts as ascertainable 
in connection with the operations of natural law.”— London (England) Times. 

“The work is a practical guide to right living, as the author applies his theory to 
every department of human life, individual social, national. Students of ethics can not 
afford to neglect this book. It ought to be in the libraries of parents of sons and 
daughters approaching manhood and womanhood.”— The Chronicle Monthly. 

“The book is clear and comprehensive. His theory in regard to conflict is reason¬ 
able, and the principles deduced from it have philosophic foundation .”—Boston Tran¬ 
script. 

“Professor Raymond extracts a fundamental principle that largely reconciles exist¬ 
ing ethical theories . . . makes distinctions that have vitality, and will repay the 
necessary study and application.”— Scientific American. 

“He is analytic and comprehensive, and, above all, scholarly. He has made a 
contribution in this field of research that will be received with enthusiasm, and readily 
turned into the realm of productive thought.”— Western Christian Advocate, Cincinnati. 
Ohio. 


G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, New York and London, Publishers 



ProfessorRaymond’sSystemofCOMPARATIVE/ESTHETICS 

I. —Art in Theory. 8vo, cloth extra. 

“ Scores an advance upon the many art criticisms extant.... Twenty briflian% 
chapters, pregnant with suggestion. ”—Popular Science Monthly. 

“A well grounded, thoroughly supported, and entirely artistic conception of art 
that will lead observers to distrust the charlatanism that imposes an idle and super¬ 
ficial mannerism upon the public in place of true beauty and honest workmanship. “ 
~-The New York Times. 

“ His style is good, and his logic sound and . . . of the greatest possible service 
to the student of artistic theories. ”—Art Journal (London). r 

II. —The Representative Significance of Form. 8vo, cloth extra ~ 

“A valuable essay. . . . Professor Raymond goes so deep into causes as to 
explore the subconscious and the unconscious mind for a solution of his problems, 
and eloquently to range through the conceptions of religion, science and metaphysics 
in order to find fixed principles of taste. ... A highly interesting discussion. ”— 
The Scotsman (Edinburgh). 

“Evidently the ripe fruit of years of patient and exhaustive study on the part of a 
man singularly fitted for his task. It is profound in insight, searching in analysis, 
broad in spirit, and thoroughly modern in method and sympathy. ’’—The Universalist 
Leader. 

“Its title gives no intimation to the general reader of its attractiveness for him, or 
to curious readers of its widely discursive range of interest. . . . Its broad range 
may remind one of those scythe-bearing chariots with which the ancient Persians 
used to mow down hostile files .”—The Outlook. 

III. —Poetry as a Representative Art. 8vo, cloth extra 

“I have read it with pleasure, and a sense of instruction on many pofnts.”— 
Francis Turner Palgrave, Professor of Poetry, Oxford University. 

“Dieses ganz vortreffliche Werk.”— Englischen Sludien, Universitdt Breslau. 

“An acute, interesting, and brilliant piece of work. ... As a whole the essay 
deserves unqualified praise.’.’— N. Y. Independent. 

IV. —Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture as Representative Arts. 

With 225 illustrations. 8vo.^ 

“The artist will find in it a wealth of profound and varied learning; of original, 
suggestive, helpful thought . . . of absolutely inestimable value. ”—The Looker-on. 

“Expression by means of extension or size, . . . shape, . . . regularity in 
outlines . . . the human body . . posture, gesture, and movement, . . . are 
all considered. ... A specially interesting chapter is the one on color.”— 
Current Literature. 

“The whole book is the work of a man of exceptional thoughtfulness, who says 
what he has to say in a remarkably lucid and direct manner.”— Philadelphia.Press. . 

V. —The Genesis of Art Form. Fully illustrated. 8vo . 

“In a spirit at once scientific and that of the true artist, he pierces through the 
manifestations of art to their sources, and shows the relations intimate and essential, 
between painting, sculpture, poetry, music, and architecture. A book that possesses 
not only singular value, but singular charm.”— N. Y. Times. 

“A help and a delight. Every aspirant for culture in any of the liberal arts, includ¬ 
ing music and poetry, will find something in this book to aid him .”—Boston Times. 

“It is impossible to withhold one’s admiration from a treatise which exhibits in 
such a large degree the qualities of philosophic criticism .”—Philadelphia Press. 

VI. —Rhythm and Harmony in Poetry and Music, Together with 

Music as a Representative Art. 8vo, cloth extra . 

“Professor Raymond has chosen a delightful subject, and he treats it with all the 
charm of narrative and high thought and profound study .”—New Orleans States. 

“The reader must be, indeed, a person either of supernatural stupidity or of 
marvelous erudition, who does not discover much information in Prof. Raymond’s 
exhaustive and instructive treatise. From page to page it is full of suggestion.”— 
The Academy (London). 

VII. —Proportion and Harmony of Line and Color in Painting, 

Sculpture, and Architecture. Fully illustrated. 8vo. 

“ Marked by profound thought along lines unfamiliar to most readers and thinkers. 
... When grasped, however, it becomes a source of great enjoyment and exhil¬ 
aration. ... No critical person can afford to ignore so valuable a contribution to 
the art-thought of the day .”—The Art Interchange (N. Y.). 

“One does not need to be a scholar to follow this scholar as he teaches while 
seeming to entertain, for he does both .”—Burlington Hawkeye. 

“ The artist who wishes to penetrate the mysteries of color, the sculptor who desires 
to cultivate his sense of proportion, or the architect whose ambition is to reach to a 
high standard will find the work helpful and inspiring .”—Boston Transcript. 


G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, New York and London, Publishers 




The Poet’s Cabinet and An Art-Philosopher’s Cabinet, 

two books containing quotations, the one from the 
poems, the other from the sesthetic works of George 
Lansing Raymond, selected and arranged alphabetically 
according to subject by Marion Mills Miller, Litt. D., 
editor of The Classics , Greek and Latin , with illustrations. 
Each book 8vo., cloth-bound, gilt top. . . . $ 2.00 

“Dr. Raymond is one of the most just and pregnant critics, as well as one of the 
most genuine poets, that America has produced. . . . His verse generally, and his 
prose frequently, is a solid pack of epigrams; and hundreds of the epigrams are vigor¬ 
ous, fresh, telling, worth collecting and cataloguing. . . . Probably from no other 
American but Emerson could a collection at all comparable be made. Many of the 
phrases are profound paradox. . . . Others are as hard-headed as La Rochfou- 
cauld. . . . Some are plain common sense, set in an audacious figure, or a vigorous 
turn of phrase. . . . But few or none of them are trivial. . . . As an aesthetic 
critic, Professor Raymond is, by training and temperament, remarkably versatile 
and catholic. He is almost or quite equally interested in architecture, painting, 
sculpture, music, poetry. . . . Each is as definitely placed in his system as the 
several instruments in a great orchestra. ... If Dr. Raymond had been born in 
France, England, or Germany, he would, no doubt, have enjoyed a wider vogue. But 
it is just as well that he was none of these; for the, as yet, aesthetically immature New 
World has sore need of him and his like.”— Memorial : Societe Academique D' Histoire 
Internationale, Paris. 

“We risk little in foretelling a day when all considerable libraries, private as well as 
public, will be deemed quite incomplete if lacking these twin volumes. Years after 
the thinker has paid the debt to nature due, his thoughts will rouse action and 
emotion in the hearts and minds of generations now unborn ."—Worcester (Mass.) 
Gazette. 

“This Poet’s Cabinet is the best thing of its class—that confined to the works of 
one author—upon which our eyes have fallen, either by chance or purpose. We can’t 
help wishing that we had a whole book-shelf of such volumes in our own private 
library .”—Columbus (O.) Journal. 

“The number and variety of the subjects are almost overwhelming, and the 
searcher for advanced or new thought as expressed by this particular philosopher 
has no difficulty in coming almost immediately upon something that may strike his 
fancy or aid him in his perplexities. To the student of poetry and the higher forms of 
literature, it may be understood that the volume will be of distinct aid .”—Utica 
(N. Y.) Observer. 

“A wide range of topics, under appropriate heads, and their classification in 
alphabetic order, thus making the work convenient for reference. . . . Editors, 
authors, teachers, public speakers, and many others will find it a useful volume, filled 
with quotable passages in astonishing numbers when it is remembered that they 
are the work of a single author .”—Hartford (Conn.) Times. 

“Dr. Miller’s task in selecting representative extracts from Professor Raymond’s 
works has not been a light one, for there has been no chaff among the wheat, and 
there was an ever present temptation to add bulk to the book through freedom in 
compilation. He thought best, however, to eliminate all but the features which 
revealed the rare rich soul and personality of the poet, and each quotation is a 
gem .”—Albany (N. Y.) Times- Union. 

“The book contains a careful and authoritative selection of the best things which 
this brilliant man of letters has given to the literary world. . . . The compiler has 
done fine work. . . . One can not turn to a page without coming across some 
quotation which fits in for the day with the happiest result. Dr. Raymond’s satire 
is keen but kindly, his sentiment sweet and tender, and his philosophy convincing 
and useful .”—Buffalo (N. Y.) Courier. 

"Everybody who knows anything about literature knows, of course, that Dr. 
Raymond is a philosopher as well as poet. . . no mere rhymester, no simple weaver 
of ear-tickling phrases, and of well-measured verse and stanza. There is pith as well 
as music in his song ... all breathing power as well as grace ,"—Brooklyn (N. Y.) 
Citizen. 

“To study the works of any one man so that we are completely familiar with his 
ideas upon all important subjects—if the man have within him any element of great¬ 
ness—is a task which is likely to repay the student’s work. . . . This fact makes 
the unique quality of the present volume . . . quotations which deal with practi¬ 
cally every subject to be found in more general anthologies .”—Boston (Mass.) 
Advertiser. 


G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, New York and London, Publishers 











Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Dec. 2004 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



































































